Judge orders White House to restore CNN, Politico and MS NOW press passes; reporters back on grounds

Judge Timothy Kelly’s 14-day restraining order, which found the ban likely unconstitutional, restored hard-pass access Thursday after the outlets’ lawyers said the White House was slow to comply.

Confirmed By Jordan Hale · Staff Writer — World & Politics United States Published Sep 24, 2026, 12:45 PM PT Updated Sep 28, 2026, 5:30 PM PT

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order Thursday directing the White House to immediately reinstate hard-pass credentials for employees of CNN, Politico, and MS NOW, according to ABC News (opens in new tab), The Guardian (opens in new tab), BBC News (opens in new tab), NBC News (opens in new tab), the Washington Examiner (opens in new tab), and the Associated Press. The order lasts 14 days. Reporters from all three outlets were back on the White House grounds by early afternoon, according to ABC News (opens in new tab), The Guardian (opens in new tab), BBC News (opens in new tab), NBC News (opens in new tab) and the Associated Press.

Access did not come back right away. Journalists from the three organizations were turned away Thursday morning, and some had their passes taken by Secret Service agents, according to their lawyers’ court filing as reported by The Guardian (opens in new tab) and AP. The lawyers told the court the government had repeatedly violated the order and asked for an emergency hearing. In a sworn filing, a White House press operations official laid out a timeline in which badge reinstatement began shortly after 7 a.m. and passes were back at the entry gate before 10 a.m., The Guardian (opens in new tab) and NBC News (opens in new tab) reported. After that filing, Kelly denied the request, so the emergency hearing was dropped, according to NBC News (opens in new tab).

Kelly found the ban likely unconstitutional. He concluded the outlets were likely to succeed in showing their passes were revoked without the notice and opportunity to respond that due process requires, and called the standard in the White House’s letters to the outlets “so vague it hardly does the trick,” according to AP and The Guardian (opens in new tab). He also doubted that national security was the real reason for the ban, noting that Trump had initially pointed to coverage he called negative and untruthful. The Justice Department argued in filings that the outlets published sensitive national-security information, and told the court that White House access is a privilege, not a right. Both positions are on the record; a restraining order is a temporary step, not a final ruling on the outlets’ claims.

Kelly said a hearing on a preliminary injunction will be fast-tracked so it takes place within the 14-day window, The Guardian (opens in new tab) reported. The order applies to the defendants other than the president personally. The case, Cable News Network v. Trump, continues.

Background: Trump announced the ban on the three outlets on Sept. 18, citing what he called fake news, and later said their reporting posed a national-security risk, according to AP. The outlets sued, arguing the ban violated the First Amendment by targeting them over the content of their coverage.

Bias check

Moderate No clear tilt

The court order and restored access are confirmed across center, left, right and wire outlets; the government’s national-security rationale is kept on the record next to the judge’s skepticism.

Source mix now spans center (ABC, BBC), left (Guardian, NBC), right (Washington Examiner) and wire (AP).

The judge’s finding is described as ‘likely unconstitutional’, matching the restraining-order standard; the Washington Examiner’s wording that he called the ban unconstitutional is stronger than the ruling.

The judge’s skepticism is attributed to the court as reported, and set against DOJ’s filed position.

Plaintiff lawyers’ claims of non-compliance are attributed to them; the White House timeline is attributed to its sworn filing.