MS NOW and Politico reporters regain entry to White House
02:25
Get more newson
Sept. 24, 2026, 1:31 AM EDT / Updated Sept. 24, 2026, 8:47 PM EDT
WASHINGTON — CNN, MS NOW and Politico journalists were allowed back at the White House on Thursday, nearly a week after President Donald Trump banned them. They were reinstated after a judge ruled that the administration had to temporarily restore their access.
White House reporters Betsy Klein of CNN and Laura Barrón-López of MS NOW immediately began reporting live on the air after they were allowed onto the White House grounds Thursday afternoon. Both media outlets pointed to the on-air reporting when they were asked for comment. Politico wrote shortly afterward that one of its reporters was granted access, too.
The media outlets scored a victory overnight when U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly reinstated their access for 14 days while their legal challenge proceeded.
Yet on Thursday morning, reporters from the banned outlets were still prohibited from entering the White House. Shortly afterward, Kelly ordered the administration to respond in writing by 12:30 p.m. after journalists from the three outlets were turned away. After receiving a filing from White House press operations director Micah Stopperich, the judge denied the news organizations’ request for an emergency hearing.
It was not clear why the journalists were initially still barred from entering. The White House did not immediately respond to NBC News’ request for comment.
In the administration’s court filing shortly before the deadline, Stopperich presented a timeline of the administration’s activity to reinstate the journalists’ access.
Stopperich said that her team was told shortly after 7 a.m. to restore access “to affected reporters by turning on their hard badges” and that soon after, it began to do so. The Secret Service indicated shortly after 9 a.m. that the journalists’ passes were “back on” and that they were dropped off at the entry gate for pickup within the hour.
Later, two reporters for CNN and another from MS NOW were turned away from the state dinner arrivals at the White House, in which Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping, both outlets reported.
Both outlets were admitted back onto White House grounds earlier in the day. The event was open press but all media had to RSVP for credentials. These three journalists applied, but their credentials were not issued. They tried to go in with the rest of the press, gave their names and their outlets’ names, but were turned away.
Trump announced his ban on the three news outlets Friday on Truth Social, saying it was “a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!”
Kelly wrote in his temporary restraining order that Trump’s directive was most likely unconstitutional.He wrote that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their lawsuit against the administration, at least on the grounds that their credentials were revoked last week without due process.
Trump, the judge wrote, did not dispute that the outlets “did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before their hard passes were revoked.”
The attorney representing the news outlets, Ted Boutrous, said in a statement: “This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law. We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action.”
Thursday’s order rejected the White House’s argument that outlets were banned because of national security concerns, saying the administrationoffered little proof to back up the claim.
“Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ Plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting,” Kelly wrote.
Inside the lawsuit challenging Trump’s White House outlet ban
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office a short time after the post, Trump referred to his directive as “the ban on the free press.”
“I don’t want them in my office. I don’t want them here,” he said.
He said the policy was a response not to a particular report but to “cumulative stories over the last few years.”
“They purposely write negative news. And they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration,” he said. “If they could straighten themselves out, I’d love it.”
The outlets said in their suit challenging the ban that Trump’s remarks show that the policy was motivated by “retaliation” and that it was “intended to cow” them “into changing their reporting and threaten other journalists lest they suffer the same fate.”
The White House accused the news outlets in letters Tuesday of publishing “sensitive security information, and misinformation,” which “undermines the President’s ability to safeguard the national security.”
The White House cited specific articles about munitions stockpiles affected by the Iran war and sanctions against Russia, as well as one about a request for $1 billion in fundingfor East Wing renovations that Trump had said would be fully funded by donors and another about negative “vibes” at the recent Republican midterm convention.
Judge orders White House to restore access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico
04:37
Addressing the “extraordinary” standard that the government argued gave it the right to revoke the outlets’ passes without notice, Kelly wrote that the sorts of stories cited in the letters “are routine” and stretch back months or even years.
NBC News has reported that Trump’s announcement Friday caught a number of high-level White House aides off guard. A senior White House official defended the move to NBC News this week, saying, “Nobody close to the President was surprised at his action to hold the fake news accountable.”
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the White House Correspondents’ Association and a group of 49 news and media organizations — including NBCUniversal Media, the parent company of NBC News — filed a legal brief Wednesday backing the three outlets.
The filing saidTrump’s stated reasons for the ban “are transparently viewpoint discriminatory” and “inconsistent with the First Amendment.”
“The ban at issue in this case does exactly what longstanding D.C. Circuit precedent” has said the government cannot do, the filing said — “prohibited three news organizations from access to the entirety of the White House and its grounds due to the content of their reporting.”
It also clashes, the filing said, “with bedrock Supreme Court precedent, which recognizes that ‘even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit,’ the government ‘may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests — especially, his interest in freedom of speech.’”
