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

Washington — Three major news organizations filed a federal lawsuit on Monday challenging the Trump administration’s decision to bar them from the White House, calling the move a direct assault on the First Amendment and asking a judge to immediately restore their access.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico jointly announced the legal action after their reporters were denied entry to the White House on Saturday and had their press credentials revoked. The ban was announced Friday by President Donald Trump in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, where he said the outlets were being barred from White House grounds. The move was the latest in a series of steps by the administration to target news organizations whose coverage the president views as hostile or unfair.

In a joint statement, the three outlets said they were suing to ensure that their journalists could return to work covering the president and the White House without being subjected to what they described as unconstitutional retaliation. The legal motion filed by the news organizations argued that no president has the authority to strip press access from specific outlets simply because he disagrees with their reporting.

“There could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment,” the motion said. “Presidents from the earliest days of the Republic have disagreed with and complained about the tenor and content of press coverage of their administrations.”

The lawsuit names Trump himself, along with three senior aides: White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, spokesperson Steven Cheung, and Secret Service Chief Sean Curran. The motion says the news organizations notified the administration of their intent to sue before filing.

Trump responded Monday morning on Truth Social, defending the move and rejecting claims that it amounted to an attack on press freedom. “The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish,” he wrote. “It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America.” In a separate post, he added: “FAKE NEWS IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, and I will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the U.S.A. thrives.”

The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump during his first term. Kelly has experience with disputes between the White House and the press. He presided over a lawsuit filed by CNN reporter Jim Acosta in 2018 after the first Trump administration revoked Acosta’s press pass. Kelly ruled in Acosta’s favor, ordering the White House to restore his credentials on the grounds that the revocation had violated Acosta’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The White House ultimately complied with that order.

Kelly scheduled a hearing in the new case for Wednesday afternoon. Late Tuesday, the Justice Department responded to the lawsuit, arguing in court filings that the ban was justified at least in part by national security concerns. The department contended that the president had concluded the outlets failed to maintain basic standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including by publishing sensitive or classified information.

“In response, the president has preliminarily revoked their continued access to White House grounds,” the administration’s filing said. “After all, access to the White House is a privilege — not a right.”

The Justice Department said the three outlets were being given until Sept. 25 at 5 p.m. to contest the decision to revoke their access. But the news organizations’ lawsuit is asking the court to move quickly, before that administrative process can play out, arguing that continued exclusion is causing ongoing harm to their ability to cover the presidency.

The practical consequences of the ban were felt almost immediately. CNN was scheduled to serve as the television network pool team traveling with the president on Monday. Because CNN was barred, and no replacement was arranged, there was no television network traveling with Trump that day — an unprecedented gap in White House coverage. The pool is a small rotating group of journalists who cover the president daily and share their reporting and footage with the wider press corps, so the absence of a TV pool meant a significant loss for news outlets across the country.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, after the ban was announced, Trump suggested there was no single incident that prompted the decision. He said the outlets were simply not credible and should not be allowed regular access to White House spaces.

“I don’t think somebody should be allowed to come and write fake stories. They’re fake news. And they have no credibility,” Trump said. “Now, if they want to write them, that’s fine, but I don’t have to let them into my — into the people’s house.”

Press freedom advocates immediately condemned the move. Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, called the ban “flatly unconstitutional.” He argued that blocking specific outlets from White House grounds because of their editorial positions was textbook viewpoint discrimination.

“This will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged,” Brown said.

The lawsuit represents another chapter in a broader conflict between the Trump administration and the press over access to government spaces. Last year, the administration imposed new restrictions on media access to the Pentagon. The Defense Department required journalists who needed daily access to the building to agree to a series of rules, including one suggesting that reporters who solicited sensitive information could be deemed a security risk and removed from the facility. Most major news outlets, including CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, Fox News and CNN, declined to sign the agreement and left the Pentagon building rather than accept the restrictions.

A federal judge later struck down some of those rules, finding that they violated the First Amendment. In response, the Defense Department shifted course and began requiring that all reporters on Pentagon grounds be escorted by government personnel. An appeals court allowed that escort policy to remain in effect, meaning reporters can still enter the building but only under government supervision.

In its response to the new lawsuit late Tuesday, the Justice Department included sworn statements from Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Lewis and a senior Pentagon official. Both said that after the Pentagon limited media access, leaks of sensitive information had slowed. They argued that allowing the White House ban to proceed would have a similar effect.

The administration has also taken action against other outlets in different settings. Last year, Trump barred The Associated Press from attending certain White House events after the wire service refused to adopt his administration’s language for the body of water officially renamed the “Gulf of America.” The AP sued on First Amendment grounds, and a federal judge in Washington initially ruled that the White House had to restore the organization’s access. But an appeals court later allowed the ban to take effect, at least temporarily, while the legal fight continued.

That appellate ruling was significant because it distinguished between different kinds of access. The AP had been blocked from restricted spaces such as the Oval Office and Air Force One, which are open only to a small subset of the White House press corps. The judges said the White House could not ban journalists from spaces that are generally open to the press, such as the briefing room, based on their viewpoint. But they allowed the administration to make more discretionary decisions about access to highly restricted settings.

The new case against CNN, MS NOW and Politico is different in scope. The administration has revoked their credentials entirely, barring them from all White House grounds, not just from specific areas. The outlets argue that this is a far broader and more punitive measure, one that cannot be squared with longstanding legal protections for the press.

As the legal process unfolded, the White House also took control of the press pool, a small, rotating group of journalists who cover the president each day and share information and video with other outlets. The print pool now works on a rotation that has reduced the frequency with which wire services, including The Associated Press, are granted access to spaces like Air Force One or the Oval Office.

The case is expected to move quickly, with a hearing scheduled Wednesday afternoon before Judge Kelly. The court’s decision could have significant implications not only for the three outlets involved but for the broader question of how much control a president has over which journalists are allowed to cover the White House.