White House ban on CNN, Politico and MS Now reporters unlikely to fly

The Trump-appointed judge seemed skeptical of the Justice Department’s claim that the ban was necessary for national security and noted the White House afforded little to no due process to the journalists.WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge on Wednesday seemed likely to order the White House to restore Oval Office access to three major media outlets thrown out by President Donald Trump, who complains about their critical coverage.U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Donald Trump appointee, heard arguments from CNN, Politico and MS NOW in a lawsuit filed Monday. He did not immediately rule on the outlets’ request for a temporary restraining order lifting the president’s ban, which they claim is a clear example of viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.Speaking from the Oval Office on Friday, Trump said the ban was the result of the outlets’ “one-sided” and “never good” reporting over the last two years, and he threated bans of other news outlets. The ban stripped journalists of hard passes to the White House, expressly barring them from the entire grounds of the White House.The outlets were also removed from the White House press pool — a rotating group of reporters who share responsibility for video, audio, photography and print coverage of the president — leading other broadcasters in the press pool to pull their own coverage of the president in solidarity.During a ribbon-cutting ceremony for Trump’s new helipad on the White House South Lawn on Monday, viewers could not hear the president’s comments as the press pool wasn’t present to mic him up.Kelly opened the hearing by noting his ruling would ultimately need to follow the precedent set in two D.C. Circuit cases, *Sherrill v. Knight*and Karem v. Trump, where the appellate court upheld journalists’ rights to due process in disputes regarding their White House press passes.“I think it’s fair to say that the process wasn’t followed here,” Kelly said.The outlet’s attorney Theodore Boutrous, of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, argued the case should be cut and dry thanks to Trump’s continued comments slamming the outlets’ coverage of him, which show the ban is based on his personal distaste rather than any claims of national security.In the Justice Department’s reply brief filed late Tuesday night, the government aruges the news outlets failed to maintain basic standards of decorum by publishing sensitive or classified information, calling access to the White House “a privilege — not a right.”Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik urged Kelly to hold off any ruling on the temporary restraining order until after 5 p.m. EST Friday, the deadline for the outlets to contest their ban.Velchik said it was burdensome and time-consuming for the government to investigate incidents where sensitive information is leaked to the press. In a court filing, the Justice Department pointed to Politico’s use of anonymous quotes from a “senior administration official,” but the Washington Post reported Tuesday that the quotes were acquired from a press call hosted by the White House.Further, the Justice Department claims the president’s actions were entirely lawful, in part because the D.C. Circuit decision Sherrill — which also held some areas of the White House are a nonpublic forum and thus any First Amendment restrictions must be reasonable — is wrong and should be overturned.“At the very least, the government may control reporters’ access to restricted presidential areas, such as the Oval Office, even for viewpoint-discriminatory reasons,” the Justice Department said, citing the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in *Associated Press v. Budowich. “*Second, the president’s actions were not retaliatory because the government would have taken the same action anyway, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ speech criticizing the president — indeed, the president has not revoked access to other outlets that have equally criticized the president.”Trump has regularly raised concerns of national security throughout his second presidency for a wide range of issues — from the addition of a military-grade bunker underneath the White House ballroom to the planned 250-foot triumphal arch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery that will now purportedly include a drone base and snipers’ nests.Federal courts are required to give wide deference on issues of national security due to the executive’s role at the head of the military, but judges throughout Washington have become more skeptical they should continue doing so.Last year, Trump similarly kicked The Associated Press out of the Oval Office and other White House events in retaliation for its continued use of “Gulf of Mexico” in its reporting despite his order changing the name to “Gulf of America.”U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled the ban unconstitutional in June 2025, but a D.C. Circuit panel led by Trump appointees ruled 2-1 to stay his injunction. Another D.C. Circuit panel heard full arguments on Nov. 24, 2025, but has yet to rule.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads