White House reporters say they've been denied access again despite court ruling

White House reporters say they've been denied access again despite court ruling

Judge in case skeptical of national security rationale raised by White House

A federal judge temporarily blocked U.S. President Donald Trump's move to ban three news outlets from the White House grounds, saying early on Thursday that CNN, MS NOW and Politico must have their access restored.

Despite the ruling, reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico said Thursday morning that they were once again denied entry to the White House compound.

The news organizations have asked for a videoconference or teleconference with the judge as soon as possible to address what they say is a violation of the court's order. According to both CNN and MS NOW, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly has asked the administration to respond to that request by 12:30 p.m. ET.

It's not clear why the White House has not reinstated the reporters from those media outlets, but the Trump administration has previously been accused of defying court orders, particularly in immigration and deportation cases.

It's the latest development in an escalating showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes. Trump announced he was banning the outlets last week, assailing what he called "fake news," and later arguing that their reporting was a risk to national security. The outlets argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage, calling the ban a blatant First Amendment violation.

It comes as the news organizations who are plaintiffs are seeking to cover the state visit of Xi Jinping of China, where press freedoms have been curtailed on the mainland and in Hong Kong.

In an order early Thursday, Kelly said the media outlets had met the legal thresholds to obtain a temporary restraining order, in effect for 14 days. He said they were likely to succeed in showing that their White House press passes were revoked without due process.

"This is a high bar, but plaintiffs have met it," he wrote.

3 U.S. media outlets sue Trump administration

Kelly said the government must have clear standards for conduct that would lead to revoking a press pass. He called the standard of objectionable reporting outlined in letters that the White House sent the outlets days after banning their reporters "so vague it hardly does the trick."

Kelly — whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist's access restored in a similar case in 2018 — heard arguments on Wednesday from the opposing sides.

Temporary restraining orders are typically designed to preserve the status quo pending a closer review of the case by the court.

White House argues access 'a privilege, not a right'

Kelly rejected the White House's claim that revoking the press passes was necessary for national security, saying officials did little to back up that notion. "Nothing in the record... suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes was motivated by national security concerns," he wrote.

"The court is skeptical … that defendants' interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes."

Did Trump just silence himself? | About That

Boutrous argued in the hearing that there was an urgent need for renewed access, saying that the ban caused irreparable harm to the outlets at a time of momentous news events. "We're at war. We have world leaders coming to Washington."

Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik, in his argument, had reiterated the administration's point that the president had the right to choose who gets into the White House.

"Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right," Velchik said.

In arguing that Trump was not engaging in viewpoint discrimination, Velchik said the U.S. president had criticized other news organizations even more harshly — such as calling ABC "the worst" — but hadn't banned them.

"The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security," Velchik told the court.

In response, Boutrous said, "Suddenly it's a national security case," arguing that the president brought up that point only after the lawsuit was filed.

Trump "keeps proving our point," Boutrous said, describing how the president has consistently used negative coverage of him as justification for the ban.

Trump, who as a private businessman earned a reputation for being litigious, has sued a number of news outlets since becoming a political figure, making various claims of harm to his reputation.

On Wednesday, an Iowa judge dismissed Trump's lawsuit accusing the Des Moines Register and its former pollster of misrepresenting the state of the 2024 presidential race, rejecting the president's claim that the newspaper's poll coverage violated Iowa's consumer fraud law.

Trump, fresh off election win, plans to sue media critics into submission

Calling the case extraordinary, Iowa District Judge Scott J. Beattie said that allowing the lawsuit and its "faulty" claims to proceed could have a chilling effect that "can discourage others from reporting on and debating public affairs."

The White House said it would appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Among the other press-related cases winding through the courts are a multibillion-dollar defamation suit Trump has filed against the BBC concerning a 2024 documentary, and a suit against the Wall Street Journal regarding an article connecting Trump to a 2003 birthday for his one-time friend Jeffrey Epstein, who was later indicted for child sex trafficking offences.

After the hearing on Wednesday, the networks continued their ban on Trump coverage. When the president formally welcomed Xi, journalists from Fox News, CBS and NBC were present but not shooting video.

Other television outlets whose crews were present, according to signs on their tripods and cameras, were NewsNation, Newsmax, Right Side Broadcasting Network, One America News and LindellTV.