US Judge Orders Trump Administration To Restore White House Access For CNN, MS NOW And Politico

Türkiye and Kenya are deepening their bilateral cooperation following a meeting between First Lady Emine Erdoğan and Kenya’s First Lady Rachel Ruto in New York. Discussions covered health, education, environmental protection, family affairs and children’s digital safety. A proposed health partnership would establish Uwezo Hospitals and specialised maternal and paediatric healthcare centres in six Kenyan counties, with Türkiye supporting infrastructure while Kenya provides land, operates the facilities and funds eligible care through its Social Health Authority. The initiative builds on decades of diplomatic and development cooperation between Nairobi and Ankara

JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP MEDIA BAN

A US federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore White House access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico after President Donald Trump banned the three news organisations from the White House.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday, September 24, requiring the administration to immediately return and restore the press credentials of journalists working for the affected outlets.
The order will remain in force for 14 days unless the court extends or changes it.
Judge Kelly said the media organisations were likely to succeed in their argument that the ban was unconstitutional.
The ruling came after CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's decision to revoke their White House access.

TRUMP ANNOUNCED THE BAN ON SEPTEMBER 18

Trump announced the ban on September 18, accusing CNN, MS NOW and Politico of producing what he described as false or negative coverage of his administration.
The following day, journalists from the three organisations were denied entry to the White House grounds, while their press credentials were confiscated or deactivated.
The affected outlets argued that the decision was retaliation for their reporting and violated protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The First Amendment generally prevents the US government from restricting freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
The organisations also argued that they were denied the legal process required before their press credentials could be revoked.

JUDGE SAYS DUE PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED

A major part of Judge Kelly's decision concerned due process.
Due process means that the government generally must provide appropriate notice and an opportunity for a person or organisation to challenge a decision before taking away a protected legal interest.
Kelly said previous decisions by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit established that journalists with White House hard passes must be given notice and an opportunity to respond before their credentials are revoked.
He found that the three news organisations did not appear to have received such an opportunity before their access was removed.
The judge had raised the same concern during a hearing on Wednesday, questioning whether the administration had followed the required procedure.

COURT REJECTS NATIONAL SECURITY JUSTIFICATION

The Trump administration had argued that the ban was justified partly by national security concerns.
Justice Department lawyers told the court that access to the White House was a privilege rather than an entitlement and argued that the president had broad authority to determine which journalists could enter the complex.
Kelly rejected the government's national security argument at this stage of the case.
He said the evidence presented to the court did not establish that removing the journalists' press credentials would actually protect national security, or that restoring their access while the lawsuit continued would endanger it.
The judge also noted that Trump's original explanation for the ban had focused on what he described as the outlets' lack of truthfulness and negative reporting, rather than national security.

TRUMP HAD PREVIOUSLY FACED A SIMILAR PRESS ACCESS CASE

Judge Kelly's decision has attracted additional attention because Kelly himself was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2017.
He also ordered White House access restored to a CNN journalist in a similar dispute in 2018.
The latest case therefore centres on the legal procedures surrounding press access rather than the political relationship between Trump and the affected media organisations.

MEDIA ORGANISATIONS CHALLENGE THE BAN

CNN, MS NOW and Politico
sued Trump administration officials after their journalists were prevented from entering the White House.
Their lawyers argued that the ban was based on the content of their reporting and therefore raised serious First Amendment concerns.
The organisations sought a temporary restraining order that would restore their access while the broader constitutional case proceeds.
The judge has now granted that temporary relief, although the underlying lawsuit has not been finally decided.

OTHER NEWS ORGANISATIONS SUSPENDED POOLED COVERAGE

The dispute also triggered an unusual response from other major news organisations.
After the ban, members of the White House television pool, including ABC News, CBS News, Fox News and NBC News, announced that they would suspend pooled coverage of Trump events rather than simply replace the banned organisations.
The action was intended to demonstrate solidarity with the affected outlets and highlight concerns about restrictions on White House press access.
Other media organisations, including Germany's Deutsche Welle, also expressed solidarity with the banned outlets.

WHITE HOUSE PRESS ACCESS HAS LONG BEEN A LEGAL BATTLEGROUND

The dispute is not the first time Trump's administration has faced legal challenges over journalists' access to the White House.
During Trump's first presidency, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta had his White House press credentials revoked in 2018 after a confrontation during a press conference.
A federal judge ordered the credential restored while the legal dispute continued.
The latest case has again raised questions about how much control a president can exercise over journalists covering the executive branch.

WHY THE CASE MATTERS FOR PRESS FREEDOM

The dispute goes beyond CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
At its centre is the question of whether a US president can exclude a news organisation from regular White House access because of disagreement with its reporting.
The administration maintains that White House access is controlled by the government and can be restricted under appropriate circumstances.
The news organisations argue that allowing the government to punish outlets because of their reporting could interfere with independent journalism and the public's ability to receive information about government activities.
Judge Kelly's temporary order does not settle that wider constitutional question, but it allows the three organisations' journalists to regain access while the court considers the case.

LEGAL BATTLE WILL CONTINUE

The Thursday ruling is temporary and does not represent a final judgment on the lawsuit.
The administration can continue defending Trump's decision as the case proceeds, while CNN, MS NOW and Politico will continue arguing that the ban violated their constitutional rights.
For now, the court has ordered the restoration of their White House press credentials for at least 14 days.
The case could ultimately produce a more detailed ruling on the limits of presidential authority over White House press access and the protections afforded to journalists covering the US government.