A federal judge expressed skepticism regarding the Trump administration’s argument that the president had valid national security grounds to bar three White House press outlets, but he did not immediately decide whether to restore access for those organizations.
U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, during a hearing held this Wednesday in Washington, also expressed doubts that President Donald Trump had provided sufficient notice to CNN, MS NOW and Politico before revoking the journalists’ credentials last week. The three outlets filed suit on Monday to challenge the prohibition.
Kelly said he would rule “soon” on the media companies’ request for a temporary order to restore their access to the White House while the case is ongoing.
During the hearing, the Justice Department’s attorney Michael K. Velchik stated that “access to the White House is a privilege, not a right” and that the president notified the outlets of his decision and gave them the opportunity to challenge it.
The White House press office sent letters to the publications at the end of Tuesday, four days after the president announced the prohibition on social media and three days after the organizations said their reporters were blocked from entering the White House.
“I don’t know how a letter received after the credential had already been revoked could provide the standards to which they should tailor their conduct,” Kelly said during the hearing.
In the letters, the press office told the outlets that their credentials had been revoked for “spreading information demonstrably false about national security and other topics, as well as publishing sensitive or classified information.”
Theodore Boutrous, the outlets’ attorney, said the ban amounts to a “blatant discrimination of viewpoint and content” and that the national security justification is not appropriate. According to him, Trump’s original post on social media did not mention any national security issues.
“The Secret Service analyzes only one thing: physical threats to the President of the United States,” Boutrous said. According to him, a reporter may eventually be considered a physical threat, but not on account of their journalistic work, as the government contends.
Boutrous added that the president is free to criticize the press and the administration’s coverage as much as he wishes. “What he cannot do is use government power to punish them for their expression,” he said.
Trump announced the ban in a post on social media on Friday. The following day, reporters from the three outlets were barred from accessing the White House premises. The Trump administration has a history of attempting to restrict press access to events and spaces deemed of public interest.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued Trump on Monday, calling the measure a blatant violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The outlets say the ban was implemented immediately, without proper prior notice or an opportunity to contest it, which would also violate the right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Kelly, appointed to the post by Trump, presided over a similar case in 2018, when CNN sued the White House after the revocation of the credential of correspondent Jim Acosta. At that time, the judge ordered the journalist’s access restored.
Initially, Trump referred to the new policy as “the ban on the free press” and suggested it could affect other media outlets. On Monday, however, he softened the description by posting on social media that the White House “is not promoting an attack on the free press,” but rather fighting what he called “fake news.”
Dozens of media organizations, including Bloomberg News, Dow Jones and Reuters, signed an amicus brief filed with the court in support of the outlets affected by the measure.
© 2026 Bloomberg L.P.
