Federal judge issues longer-term decision blocking Trump’s White House media ban
NBC News · LC · trust 45/100
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of Washington, D.C., issued the preliminary injunction in the wake of a hearing Thursday at which the administration contended it imposed the ban in part because of national security concerns; media organizations said it was because of “viewpoint discrimination.”
Kelly sided with the news outlets, noting that Trump used national security as a reason for the ban after their press passes had already been revoked and ruling that it also likely violated reporters’ freedom of speech and due process rights.
“There is practically nothing national security-related in the record connected to the President’s decision to revoke Plaintiffs’ hard passes to which the Court can defer,” Kelly wrote in his 26-page opinion.
His order will give the outlets access to the White House until the underlying lawsuit challenging the ban is resolved. But it doesn’t require the administration to allow reporters from the outlets access to the Oval Office or Air Force One — locations where the administration has blocked reporters from CNN and Politico in recent weeks.
Trump vowed to appeal on Truth Social before the ruling was handed down. The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment following the ruling.
Kelly had issued a temporary restraining order lifting the ban while he weighed whether to issue an injunction.
Trump announced the bans of CNN, MS NOW and Politico on social media on Sept. 18, saying they were a “result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!”
“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,” he wrote on Truth Social.
In court filings, the three news organizations said the ban affected 78 journalists who had “hard passes,” meaning they had been previously screened and credentialed to work at the White House.
The outlets filed a lawsuit alleging Trump’s action violated their due process rights and First Amendment protections for newsgathering and speech.
“This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,” the suit said.
The White House and Trump then began arguing that the ban was intended to address national security concerns, with Trump saying in another post that the outlets’ reporting was “a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!”
FOR SUBSCRIBERS What to know about lung cancer following Pope Leo’s diagnosis FOR SUBSCRIBERS Kimberly Guilfoyle’s swift exit FOR SUBSCRIBERS ‘The fear factor persists’: Economic damage lingers in cities hit by immigration raids FOR SUBSCRIBERS Students who thought Cornell would handle Jane Doe’s allegations properly are demanding change FOR SUBSCRIBERS How a conspiracy theory about James Talarico raced through the right-wing internet FOR SUBSCRIBERS The Data Dive: Steve Kornacki on why 2026 isn’t like 2018 FOR SUBSCRIBERS Why a wave of ‘Cockroach’ protesters are defying India’s bid to stamp out their movement FOR SUBSCRIBERS The American consumer keeps spending. How much longer can it last? FOR SUBSCRIBERS Attack on Saudi airport dials up pressure on D.C. FOR SUBSCRIBERS Republican attempts to trip up James Talarico keep backfiring FOR SUBSCRIBERS Another Hormuz? What to know about the Houthi threat to the Red Sea FOR SUBSCRIBERS GOP ad buyer mixes up Portlands, spends money meant to help Maine Sen. Susan Collins in Oregon FOR SUBSCRIBERS Jane Doe’s night started with catching up. It ended with a frat party that changed everything. FOR SUBSCRIBERS ‘Trump never cared about us’: Ukraine smarts at U.S. pressure and deal with Putin FOR SUBSCRIBERS Facing smaller crowds and low approval ratings, Trump tries to rally the base Slide 1 of 1 The judge was unmoved by that argument.
Kelly said it was clear from Trump’s announcement of the ban and from subsequent remarks that his motivation was content.
“President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him,” Kelly wrote, finding this decision violated the journalists’ First and Fifth amendment rights.
He noted, however, that his decision doesn’t concede that Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness are unfounded or that the government is “powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.”
FOR SUBSCRIBERS What to know about lung cancer following Pope Leo’s diagnosis FOR SUBSCRIBERS Kimberly Guilfoyle’s swift exit FOR SUBSCRIBERS ‘The fear factor persists’: Economic damage lingers in cities hit by immigration raids FOR SUBSCRIBERS Students who thought Cornell would handle Jane Doe’s allegations properly are demanding change FOR SUBSCRIBERS How a conspiracy theory about James Talarico raced through the right-wing internet FOR SUBSCRIBERS The Data Dive: Steve Kornacki on why 2026 isn’t like 2018 FOR SUBSCRIBERS Why a wave of ‘Cockroach’ protesters are defying India’s bid to stamp out their movement FOR SUBSCRIBERS The American consumer keeps spending. How much longer can it last? FOR SUBSCRIBERS Attack on Saudi airport dials up pressure on D.C. FOR SUBSCRIBERS Republican attempts to trip up James Talarico keep backfiring FOR SUBSCRIBERS Another Hormuz? What to know about the Houthi threat to the Red Sea FOR SUBSCRIBERS GOP ad buyer mixes up Portlands, spends money meant to help Maine Sen. Susan Collins in Oregon FOR SUBSCRIBERS Jane Doe’s night started with catching up. It ended with a frat party that changed everything. FOR SUBSCRIBERS ‘Trump never cared about us’: Ukraine smarts at U.S. pressure and deal with Putin FOR SUBSCRIBERS Facing smaller crowds and low approval ratings, Trump tries to rally the base Slide 1 of 1 Kelly cited Trump’s recent remarks to Time magazine that he didn’t like “bad…
Read the original at NBC News →
Open in TruthVane →