Judge upholds media access to White House
CNN, MS NOW and Politico may continue reporting from the presidential complex for now.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
.jpg){kind=link}
A federal judge in Washington has barred the Trump administration from withdrawing access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico. The decision applies while the legal case over the press passes continues.
Judge Timothy Kelly ruled on Tuesday that the three news organisations probably have a strong case based on the right to freedom of expression and a fair trial. The interim order maintains their previous access until the case has been decided on its merits.
The case began after President Donald Trump announced in September that he wanted to bar the three media organisations from the White House. Trump criticised their reporting, calling it negative and unreliable. According to the judge, the journalists concerned were given no prior warning and no opportunity to appeal against the withdrawal of their hard passes.
According to Kelly, the ruling affects 78 reporters. A hard pass gives journalists who regularly cover the White House long-term access to the complex, without having to request permission separately for each visit.
The government argued that access to the White House is a privilege and that the president may impose restrictions in the interests of national security or to counter disinformation. Kelly found the security reasons cited insufficiently substantiated, according to Associated Press, and pointed out that in his original announcement Trump had mainly attacked the content and tone of the reporting.
The ruling does not automatically mean that the media will have access everywhere. The press pool for travel on Air Force One and for certain meetings may also be subject to separate rules. NOS previously reported that journalists from the three organisations were initially still refused entry despite a temporary court order.
The case matters beyond the three companies involved. If a government can exclude journalists because of their reporting, the claimants argue, that could put other media organisations under pressure. The government, for its part, says that a president must retain room to organise access to a secure government complex. A final ruling on that broader question will follow later.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- A federal judge has barred the government from withdrawing the hard passes of journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico while the legal case continues.
- The judge found the procedure surrounding the withdrawal inadequate and provisionally found the national security arguments cited insufficiently substantiated.
- The legal case over the measure’s definitive constitutionality is still ongoing.
Left
Arguments The government must not punish journalists because their reporting is unwelcome to the president. Independent access is needed to hold those in power to account and to offer the public multiple sources.
Values Freedom of the press, separation of powers, equal treatment and oversight of the executive.
Consequences Allowing the ban could lead to self-censorship among media organisations and a White House questioned mainly by loyal or sympathetic reporters.
Centre
Arguments The White House must be able to organise security and practical access, but such decisions must be transparent, reviewable and not based on political preference.
Values The rule of law, proportionality, administrative continuity and the provision of reliable information.
Consequences A clear procedure with a right to be heard and to respond can protect both security and the legitimacy of press accreditation.
Right
Arguments The president must retain room to restrict access to a secure working environment when, according to the government, media organisations breach security rules or demonstrably spread inaccurate information.
Values Executive responsibility, national security and administrative effectiveness.
Consequences An overly far-reaching judicial restriction could hinder the president in protecting confidential information and organising his own communications.
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 ruling, the media organisations involved and the legal arguments have been confirmed by multiple public sources. The text distinguishes between the interim order and the ongoing proceedings on the merits.
- confirmed A federal judge upheld CNN, MS NOW and Politico’s access to the White House. — AP and Axios describe the interim order issued by Judge Timothy Kelly. source
- confirmed Trump had denied the three media organisations access in September. — The ruling and AP describe the announcement of 18 September. source
- confirmed The judge found that the journalists had received no prior warning or opportunity to appeal. — This is stated in the judge’s reasoning and summarised by AP. source
- confirmed The ruling does not guarantee access to all individual press pools. — Axios states that access to Air Force One, among other things, may be dealt with separately. source
Editor's note
The new interim order has been confirmed by AP and Axios. The precise scope of access to individual press pools and secure locations remains part of the legal proceedings.Sources
- Judge extends order blocking Trump from banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters from White House — Associated Press
- Judge orders White House to reinstate press access — Axios
- Witte Huis laat weer journalisten toe na weigering — NOS
- Temporary Restraining Order for Cable News Network et al. v. Trump et al. — United States District Court for the District of Columbia
More on this in Dutch media
- NRC — „persvrijheid witte huis”
- NU.nl — „persvrijheid witte huis”
- De Telegraaf — „persvrijheid witte huis”