Judge Extends Block on Trump’s Ban of MS NOW, CNN, and Politico from White House

A federal judge has extended an injunction that stops the White House from enforcing a ban on three news organizations imposed by former President Donald Trump. The ban, which targeted MS NOW, CNN, and Politico, has been under legal challenge since it was announced in mid-September 2026.

Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court in Washington by Trump, issued a preliminary injunction late Tuesday. This new order replaces a temporary restraining order he issued earlier, maintaining the status quo while the lawsuit progresses. The legal action centers on the claim that the media outlets were denied due process when their permanent White House press credentials were revoked without prior notice or a chance to contest the decision.

In his ruling, Judge Kelly noted that President Trump’s own remarks suggested the ban was intended to influence the outlets’ reporting on his administration. Kelly referenced binding appellate court decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which affirm journalists’ due process rights when their White House access credentials are revoked. These precedents require the government to provide a hearing or other procedural safeguards before restricting press access.

The judge also found, for the first time in this case, that the outlets are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims. They allege the ban was an act of retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, violating their constitutional rights. However, the injunction does not compel the White House to grant access to specific locations such as the Oval Office or Air Force One, nor does it represent a final judgment on the lawsuit’s merits.

The Department of Justice argued that national security concerns motivated the ban, alongside accusations of inaccurate reporting. Judge Kelly rejected this explanation, stating there is no evidence the decision was based on national security from the outset. He described the national security claim as a "post-hoc justification" following the lawsuit’s filing.

Kelly clarified that his ruling should not be interpreted as dismissing President Trump’s concerns about media fairness or accuracy. Nor does it suggest the government lacks the authority to protect classified information when necessary. Nevertheless, the judge emphasized that the court must uphold constitutional protections while the case is pending.

Without the injunction, the three media outlets would likely endure irreparable harm by losing access to White House events and briefings. The judge’s order extends the relief granted by his previous temporary restraining order, effectively restoring the outlets’ access for now.

This legal dispute began after Trump announced on September 18, 2026, that MS NOW, CNN, and Politico would be banned for what he described as their "fiction and lies" in coverage of his presidency and administration. The ban took effect the next day, with Secret Service officers revoking the outlets’ permanent press passes and denying their reporters entry to the White House grounds.

The three organizations promptly filed a lawsuit on September 21, calling the ban "a direct assault on the First Amendment" and a violation of constitutional principles. Judge Kelly issued the initial temporary restraining order two days later, allowing the reporters to return to the White House on September 24. Since then, the restraining order has been extended multiple times while the court considers the case.

The Department of Justice defended the ban during a court hearing last Thursday, noting that 78 journalists had their White House passes revoked in connection with the policy before the judge’s temporary order. Trump indicated he would appeal any ruling against his ban.

Attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., representing the media outlets, praised the court’s decision. He stated, "When the President issued his 'ban on the free press,' he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment." Boutrous added that Trump’s own public statements confirm the ban was intended to punish unfavorable reporting and influence media coverage.

These developments highlight ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the press regarding access and accountability. The case will continue to unfold as courts weigh the balance between government authority and constitutional protections for journalists.