White House keeps journalists out despite court order
CNN, MS NOW and Politico seek an emergency hearing after their reporters were again denied access.
Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were again barred from the White House on Thursday. This happened several hours after a federal judge had ordered their access to be temporarily restored.
Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to return the press passes and access of the three news organisations. He provisionally ruled that the access ban was probably in breach of constitutional rights and that the journalists concerned had received insufficient procedural protection.
The three organisations had been barred since the previous weekend after President Donald Trump said he was withdrawing their access over reporting he considered fake news. The administration later also cited national security. The news organisations say they were punished because of the content of their reporting.
According to media reports, journalists from the three organisations were stopped again on Thursday. The precise implementation differed from reporter to reporter, and not all details can be independently established. The news organisations subsequently requested an emergency hearing to obtain clarity and enforce compliance with the court order.
The White House defends a different legal interpretation. In its own statement, the administration says access to the White House is a privilege, not an unlimited right. The Justice Department has also argued that the president must retain room to regulate access on security grounds.
The case therefore concerns more than access to a single building. The press pool is one of the ways in which journalists report daily on the US presidency. If the administration can exclude media outlets because of unfavourable reporting, that could, according to the organisations involved, weaken independent oversight of the executive branch.
The court ruling is provisional and does not resolve the dispute definitively. The case will then turn on what procedure the administration must follow before denying journalists access. Until then, it remains unclear whether the reporters concerned will in practice gain access and how quickly a new court decision will follow.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Trump administration barred three news organisations from accessing the White House.
- A federal judge provisionally ordered that their access be restored.
- According to public reporting, some journalists were subsequently barred again.
Left
Arguments The administration must not punish media outlets for critical reporting. Access to the White House is part of public oversight and must be protected by clear, content-neutral rules.
Values Freedom of the press, separation of powers and oversight of the executive branch.
Consequences Ignoring a court order could undermine trust in the rule of law and independent journalism.
Centre
Arguments The president must be able to manage security and access rules, but only through transparent procedures that apply to all media. The court ruling must be complied with until a higher court decides otherwise.
Values The rule of law, institutional stability and proportionate government.
Consequences Clear rules can protect both security interests and journalistic independence.
Right
Arguments The president must be able to determine who gains access to secure government locations, especially when reporting is considered by the administration to pose risks. Media outlets do not have an automatic right to every press room or gathering.
Values Presidential authority, security and administrative control.
Consequences Broad discretion can make the administration more effective, but this view also calls for political and judicial oversight to prevent arbitrariness.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The court ruling, the earlier ban and the subsequent denial of access were confirmed by AP, Axios and the Reporters Committee. Wording about the precise implementation has deliberately been kept cautious because the situation was still changing.
- confirmed Federal judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House to provisionally restore access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico. — This is stated in the AP report and in the Reporters Committee's statement. source
- confirmed The judge provisionally ruled that the ban was probably unconstitutional. — The Guardian, AP and the Reporters Committee describe that provisional assessment. source
- confirmed Journalists from the three organisations were again barred from the White House on Thursday. — Axios reported this on 24 September. source
- confirmed The White House says that access is a privilege, not an unlimited right. — This position appears in the White House's official statement. source
- confirmed The original access ban followed criticism from President Trump of the reporting by the three organisations. — AP described the trigger and the earlier denial of access. source
Editor's note
The court ruling and the denial of access were reported by multiple public sources. The precise extent of the denial on Thursday morning and the further court proceedings were still developing at the time of writing.Sources
- Judge blocks Trump’s ban and says CNN, MS NOW and Politico must have White House access restored — The Associated Press
- White House defies court order, doesn't reinstate access for banned reporters — Axios
- Reporters Committee statement on judge ordering White House to restore press access — Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- White House Access Is a Privilege — Not a Right — The White House
More on this in Dutch media
- Het Parool — „witte huis”
- Trouw — „witte huis”
- NRC — „witte huis”