CNN, MS NOW and Politico ask judge to restore White House press credentials

Judge who ruled for Acosta in 2018 now hears similar case

CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued Trump on First Amendment free speech and Fifth Amendment due process grounds. The outlets’ lead attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous of Gibson Dunn, said in a statement that “The President has been explicit that this ban is intended to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to intimidate journalists and news organizations covering him and his administration.” Boutrous added that “This ban on the free press harms the American people, who are entitled to rigorous, fact-based coverage of the President of the United States.”

Trump told White House reporters on Friday he was fed up after what he called two years of unfair and negative coverage, then made good on his threat to bar the three outlets from covering official events. “There’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposefully negative things,” Trump said Friday. “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.”

Boutrous previously represented NPR and three Colorado public radio stations in a separate challenge to a Trump executive order that barred federal agencies from distributing federal funds to public media outlets because Trump didn’t like NPR’s coverage. A federal judge found that executive order unconstitutional, though Trump still succeeded in convincing the Republican-led Congress to pull back nearly all federal funding for public media.

Kelly, the judge in Wednesday’s hearing, ruled in favor of Acosta in 2018 when Trump aides stripped him of his White House permanent credentials on similar grounds. Trump acknowledged on Truth Social Monday afternoon that “Almost without question and, as usual, we’ll go for appeal because Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources, shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World.”

The ban created a logistical gap in White House coverage. CNN had been scheduled to serve as the pool TV network — filming the president during his official duties and distributing footage to other major networks — but no network stepped in to fill the role in a show of solidarity. NPR, a member of the White House radio pool, declined to broadcast audio of Trump, and many of CNN’s competitors are not airing video of the president from other sources.

That left Trump cutting a ribbon on a new White House helipad on Monday in a video released by the administration. The whirling helicopter parked in the background drowned out whatever Trump was saying; the audio was inaudible.

The White House launched a YouTube channel called Trump TV to circumvent the press pool, featuring a collection of past press conferences and official events with high-quality audio. Reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico are following Trump as he travels through New York for the U.N. General Assembly.

At the United Nations on Tuesday, CNN’s Kaitlin Collins stood with other journalists and shouted a question about the unpopularity of the war in Iran. Trump ignored the question, telling her, “You should not be here covering me.” Collins pointed out that the United Nations had given her press credentials — a location not under the president’s control. The court case will determine how far the president can dictate the terms of reporting on him from the White House itself.

The legal standard at the center of the case stems from a 1977 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that still holds today. Under that precedent, reporters cannot be barred from the White House or denied a permanent press pass without a clear explanation from the Secret Service that incorporates due process. While the administration has argued publicly that reporting from White House grounds is a privilege rather than a right, courts have held that once a journalist receives credentials, they cannot be blocked from returning solely because the administration objects to their coverage — a practice courts have described as “viewpoint discrimination” that violates First Amendment free speech rights.

Trump barred the Associated Press from the White House last year after he deemed the Gulf of Mexico should be called the Gulf of America, and the news wire declined to follow suit. The AP sued on grounds similar to the three outlets’ lawsuit; that case is ongoing.