CNN, MS NOW and Politico have asked a federal court in Washington to extend a temporary order protecting their access to the White House, warning that the Trump administration could reinstate its ban on the three outlets if the court does not intervene.
In a 49-page filing submitted on Monday, the news organisations requested a preliminary injunction preventing President Donald Trump and his administration from enforcing the restrictions that stripped their journalists of White House access and press credentials.
The filing argued that a federal judge had already found the administration’s procedures inadequate when it ordered the immediate restoration of the journalists’ hard passes on September 24.
The organisations further alleged that, despite the ruling, White House officials initially continued to deny access to some of their journalists before complying with the order several hours later.
The outlets also pointed to what they described as inconsistent enforcement of the restrictions. They cited the White House’s decision to prevent CNN from carrying out its scheduled role in the presidential television pool on September 26, despite the temporary restoration of its White House access.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico argued that the administration’s actions demonstrated a continuing threat to their access and that the restrictions were linked to the outlets’ coverage of Trump and his administration.
The organisations also challenged the administration’s national security justification for the restrictions, arguing that Trump’s public statements indicated that dissatisfaction with their reporting was central to the decision.
The dispute began on September 18, when Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House, accusing the outlets of repeatedly publishing inaccurate and negative reports about his administration.
The three organisations subsequently sued Trump and members of his administration, arguing that the removal of their journalists’ credentials violated constitutional protections for freedom of the press and due process.
On September 24, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House to restore the journalists’ hard passes and temporarily halted enforcement of the ban. Kelly found that the administration had likely failed to provide the required due process and questioned whether its national security justification was adequately supported.
Although the White House began restoring the credentials, the journalists were initially prevented from entering the complex on the morning of the ruling. Access was eventually restored later that day.
The dispute continued after the ruling. On September 26, CNN said it was excluded from President Trump’s Air Force One trip to Tennessee despite being a member of the rotating television pool responsible for providing video coverage of presidential events. The White House instead included another outlet that is not part of the traditional pool arrangement.
The latest court filing argues that such actions show the administration has not fully abandoned its restrictions and that the outlets could again face a complete ban if the temporary court protection expires.
The White House has defended its position, arguing that certain reporting by the outlets raised professionalism and national security concerns. The administration has also maintained that access to the White House is subject to rules governing press operations.
The case has become a significant legal dispute over presidential control of White House media access, constitutional protections for journalists and the limits of government authority to restrict reporters based on disputes over their coverage.
For now, the three organisations are seeking a preliminary injunction that would maintain their access while the broader lawsuit proceeds through the courts.
