Judge orders Trump administration to immediately reinstate White House access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico

Federal Judge Timothy Kelly has ordered the Trump administration to temporarily reinstate CNN, MS NOW and Politico’s access to the White House after they were banned from the premises by President Donald Trump.

In the ruling issued early Thursday, Kelly found the revocation of reporters’ press badges was done without “constitutionally adequate due process.”

He also said that the government’s arguments “offer little to back up their asserted national security interest.” After the ban went into effect, Trump and his lawyers said the outlets had their access revoked because their past reporting raised national security concerns.

“For one thing, nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns,” Kelly wrote. “Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ Plaintiffs from the White House —instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.”

“And even the justifications provided to Plaintiffs after this case was filed are ambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants’ letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that ‘threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods,’ leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.”

As for due process, the Trump administration didn’t notify the reporters of an opportunity to appeal his decision until after the passes were confiscated, the judge noted.

“The ‘general rule’ is that ‘individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them’ of a constitutionally protected interest,” Kelly wrote in his ruling.

Trump announced the ban of the three outlets in a social media post Friday, writing that he was kicking the news outlets out “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” and adding “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”

The three news outlets sued, requesting the ban be paused or blocked entirely. In court filings and during a hearing Wednesday, an attorney for the outlets argued the ban contradicted prior court rulings, violated due process and was issued merely because of Trump’s disdain for the journalists.

Attorneys for the administration countered, saying that Trump’s decision did include an appeals process, pointing to the letters that were received by the outlets after the ban went into effect.

Responding to Thursday’s ruling, Ted Boutrous, the lawyer representing the news outlets, told CNN: “This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law. We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action.”

CNN reached out to the Justice Department and White House for comment.

Kelly’s temporary restraining order is in effect for 14 days.

During Wednesday’s hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order, Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that CNN, MS NOW and Politico had endangered national security with their reporting and that Trump has the right to decide who can have access to the White House.

Boutrous said during the hearing that “the first mention of national security in this case” occurred days after the announced ban and following the current lawsuit against the administration. Boutrous said it seemed as if “a light bulb went off” in the administration to adopt the national security argument to justify the ban post hoc.

Boutrous also argued the news organizations were only provided letters from the White House outlining why they had been banned days after the ban was announced and following their lawsuit.

In the ruling, Kelly acknowledged that the outlets “did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard” before their hard passes were revoked.

He wrote that the record was bereft of any relevant “formally articulated standards” in place before any of the conduct for which the hard passes were revoked.

“One standard Defendants appear to offer—reflected in letters they sent to Plaintiffs on September 22, 2026, identifying their objectionable reporting—is so vague it hardly does the trick,” Kelly said, referring to Trump administration’s allegation that one of the outlets “exhibited behavior in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex.”

Boutros also noted during Wednesday’s hearing that only one CNN story cited by the administration to highlight why the outlets were being kicked out was written by a reporter with access to the White House and that the stories cited “are just garden variety reporting.”

Kelly, in his ruling, made note of this, and that the CNN story cited as a national security concern — a report about the planned rebuilding of a bunker under the East Wing — was published months before reporter Betsy Klein’s press pass was renewed this summer.

“None of Defendants’ arguments convince the Court that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their due process claim,” Kelly wrote.

Moreover, Kelly wrote that the plaintiffs had shown “that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order,” and that it would be in the public’s interest to reinstate reporters’ press badges.

“Plaintiffs—and the public—have an abiding interest in maintaining the status quo ante given the importance of the free press, which ‘stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people,’” the ruling said.

At the start of Wednesday’s hearing, Kelly noted that he had presided over a similar case in 2018, when Trump booted then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after a heated exchange between he and the president, and had to abide by past precedent in the court.

“There is a due process claim and a due process issue that seems to me the first stop in figuring out how to resolve the motion,” Kelly said at the hearing.

Kelly’s ruling Thursday said that the circumstances here “are not so ‘extraordinary’ as to permit deviation” from the principles of due process “that a deprivation of liberty ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing.’” (CNN)