CNN, MS NOW and Politico sue Trump over White House press ban

# CNN, MS NOW and Politico Sue Trump Administration Over White House Press Ban

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have filed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump and his administration, challenging the decision to bar journalists from the White House and asking a court to restore their access and press credentials.

The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, days after Trump announced that the three news organizations would no longer be permitted to work from the White House. The outlets are seeking immediate court intervention while the broader legal challenge proceeds.

Trump announced the restrictions on September 18 through Truth Social, accusing the three organizations of publishing what he characterized as “fiction and lies” about him and his administration. The following day, reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied entry to the White House grounds, and some journalists had their hard-pass credentials confiscated.

The news organizations argue that the administration's actions violate the First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They also contend that the government acted without providing advance notice, a hearing or a clearly defined standard for revoking their access.

In their joint statement, the three outlets said they were seeking to protect their constitutional rights and the principle that the government should not determine what journalists report or publish.

The lawsuit also argues that the restrictions have interfered with the outlets' ability to cover the administration and amount to retaliation based on their reporting.

The White House has disputed that characterization. The administration has said that access to the White House is a privilege rather than a constitutional right and has rejected the claim that the restrictions represent an attack on press freedom.

Trump has continued to defend the decision, saying his administration is targeting what he calls “fake news” rather than the free press itself. He has also suggested that other media organizations could face similar restrictions.

The dispute has already affected the White House television press pool. CNN had been scheduled to participate in coverage accompanying Trump during his trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, but was removed following the ban.

Other television networks subsequently declined to provide pool coverage of some of Trump's events, citing the administration's action against CNN and the resulting dispute over access.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2017. The outlets are seeking a temporary restraining order that would restore their access while the constitutional issues are litigated.

The legal dispute follows an earlier fight between the Trump administration and the Associated Press over access to presidential events. That case also raised questions about whether the government can restrict journalists because of the content of their reporting.

In 2025, a federal judge ruled that restrictions placed on AP journalists violated the First Amendment and ordered the administration to provide the organization access comparable to that of other presidential press pool members. The ruling was subsequently paused by a federal appeals court while the administration's appeal continued.

The new lawsuit therefore places the question of presidential control over White House press access before the courts once again.

For CNN, MS NOW and Politico, the central issue is whether the government can selectively remove journalists from White House access because of objections to their reporting. For the administration, the dispute centers on its position that White House access can be controlled and that the restrictions target what Trump describes as inaccurate reporting rather than legitimate journalism.

The court's response could help determine how far a presidential administration can go in controlling access for individual news organizations while maintaining constitutional protections for press freedom.