CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Press Ban

CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a joint federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump and his administration on Monday, September 21, 2026, after their reporters were barred from the White House and had their permanent press credentials confiscated. The outlets allege the ban is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and a deprivation of due process under the Fifth Amendment. They are seeking a temporary restraining order to immediately restore access while the case proceeds.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, marks the most significant escalation yet in the long-running conflict between the Trump administration and the mainstream press.

How the Ban Unfolded

On Friday, September 18, Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that CNN, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) and Politico were banned from the White House “effective immediately” over what he called “constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” He warned that “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”

The ban took physical form the next morning. According to NPR, reporters for all three outlets were denied entry to the White House grounds on Saturday, September 19, and their badges were disabled and seized by the U.S. Secret Service at a security gate outside the West Wing.

MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner said an officer asked her to “hand over” her badge because it was “disabled.” “I asked why I was not able to get inside,” she recounted. “He said it was above him.” CNN’s Betsy Klein, who said she had covered the White House in some capacity since the Obama administration, described a similar experience, saying a Secret Service agent took her badge and offered no further explanation. Politico’s White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett was also reportedly denied entry.

In its public response, MS NOW framed the stakes in constitutional terms. “The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars,” the network said. “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”

The Lawsuit

On Monday morning, the three outlets notified the government of their intent to sue and filed the complaint, alongside a motion for a temporary restraining order. Their lead attorney is Theodore J. Boutrous of Gibson Dunn, a prominent First Amendment litigator.

“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the outlets said in a joint statement reported by The Guardian. “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

The complaint alleges that the administration acted “in express retaliation for Plaintiffs’ First Amendment-protected newsgathering and speech because they dislike that speech’s content and viewpoint.” It states that the ban “could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles.”

“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 said. “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.”

On Monday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly was assigned to the case and scheduled a hearing by videoconference for Wednesday, according to MS NOW. Kelly, a Trump appointee, is the same judge who in 2018 ordered the administration to temporarily restore the press credentials of then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after finding he had been denied due process. Trump appeared to acknowledge the unfavorable assignment on Truth Social, writing that the outlets had “drawn a great judge for them” and adding, “almost without question, and as usual we’ll go for appeal.”

Networks Suspend the Press Pool

CNN’s exclusion had an immediate structural consequence: it was scheduled to serve as the television “pool” operator on Monday, accompanying Trump to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. But the White House removed CNN from the five-member TV pool, and no replacement was named.

That prompted an extraordinary act of solidarity. Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bryan Boughton, serving as TV pool chair, circulated a memo stating that “effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President.” The five networks that form the primary video pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN — issued a rare joint statement: “The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”

In a further show of support, several outlets — including The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Associated Press — withheld publication or distribution of White House pool images, including Trump’s Marine One departure, until midnight ET. As The Guardian reported, the White House then promoted its own online feed branded “Trump TV,” purporting to show “top past moments, announcements, and the latest and greatest from the administration all in one place.”

The practical effect was immediate. With no professional broadcast crew covering Trump’s midday ribbon-cutting for a new White House helipad, the president’s remarks were inaudible over the sound of a helicopter’s engine, the Guardian reported. It is exceedingly rare for a president to travel or appear publicly without a representative of the television pool, which has accompanied the presidency since 1950.

The Constitutional Question

The legal dispute turns on two well-established principles. The White House press area has long been treated as a limited public forum, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from excluding journalists on the basis of their viewpoint. Separately, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause bars the government from revoking a privilege such as a press credential without notice and an opportunity to contest the decision.

The plaintiffs cite a 1977 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, Sherrill v. Knight, holding that reporters cannot be barred from the White House or denied a permanent press pass without a clear explanation from the Secret Service incorporating due process. They also point to successful first-term challenges that restored the credentials of CNN’s Jim Acosta and former Playboy correspondent Brian Karem. A separate Associated Press lawsuit over its exclusion from pool events remains in litigation.

Outside advocates have broadly backed the outlets. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University said it would support the news organizations in court. “The president’s decision to bar them from the White House for the content of their reporting is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment,” said the institute’s executive director, Jameel Jaffer. “It’s an attack both on press freedom and the public’s right to independent information about the government.”

The White House has staked out a contrary position, releasing a formal statement titled “White House Access Is a Privilege — Not a Right.” According to the White House, “The First Amendment protects their right to publish; it does not entitle them to a hard pass, briefing room seat, or place in the press pool.” The statement argued that access changes are nothing new and pointed to restrictions under prior administrations, adding: “No President is required to host a hostile operation on the grounds. Access has always been a privilege — and President Trump is applying that rule.”

Trump himself defended the move, writing that the White House “is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS.” Vice President J.D. Vance, asked about the suit, argued that Trump is not “banning” outlets but simply declining to give them “special access” if they “engage in what is effectively propaganda,” TIME reported.

What’s Next

Judge Kelly’s Wednesday hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order will be the first judicial test of the ban. If the court grants relief, the three outlets’ correspondents could regain access within days; if not, the case is likely to proceed through appeal — a path the president has already signaled he expects.

The broader significance may extend well beyond the three plaintiffs. The lawsuit argues the ban “impermissibly chills the speech of other news organizations and journalists, who must now balance conducting their constitutionally protected and vitally important work of reporting on the White House against the risk that coverage the president ‘dislike[s]’ will condemn them to the same fate.”

With Trump having warned that other outlets could be next, and with press-access battles already playing out at the Pentagon and in the AP’s ongoing case, the outcome will help define how far a president may go in deciding who gets to cover him — and, by extension, what the American public is permitted to see.