A federal judge on Thursday extended a temporary order that had reinstated White House press credentials for three news organizations, as litigation over President Trump's media ban continues. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, said the existing 14-day restraining order—which had been set to expire at midnight—would remain in effect for an additional two business days. A ruling on a longer-lasting injunction is expected by Tuesday.
The case stems from the White House's decision last month to bar reporters from CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from attending press events, a move Trump justified by citing what he called "fake news" that he claimed endangered national security. The administration later sent letters to each outlet detailing specific stories it said "threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods," but only after the ban was imposed.
In his initial order, Kelly did not weigh the First Amendment claims raised by the outlets. Instead, he found that the ban likely violated their constitutional due process rights because they were not given notice or an opportunity to respond before being stripped of access. The White House's after-the-fact letters, he suggested, did not cure that defect.
During Thursday's hearing, Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik argued that the letters satisfied the notice requirement, even though the outlets did not respond. But Ted Boutrous, an attorney for the media organizations, pointed to a recent Time magazine interview in which Trump railed against their coverage as a "confession" of intent to punish them for unfavorable reporting—evidence, he argued, of viewpoint discrimination barred by the First Amendment.
The dispute has disrupted the daily operations of the White House press corps. CNN and Politico have been blocked from traveling on Air Force One on multiple occasions since Kelly's initial ruling, a move Boutrous said is causing immediate and irreparable harm to his clients. Other broadcast networks have also temporarily withheld their participation in pool coverage after CNN was prevented from fulfilling its turn in the rotation.
The Justice Department and White House officials have defended the president's authority to restrict access to certain spaces, including the presidential jet and the Oval Office, for any reason. A White House official told The Hill this week that media access to presidential events is granted "unilaterally, but traveling with the President of the United States aboard Air Force One is a privilege not a right."
The dispute echoes a broader effort by the West Wing to limit press access, including last year's decision to bar the Associated Press from certain events over its refusal to use the term "Gulf of America." The administration has also sought to block Politico from print pool duties on at least one occasion since the court ordered their credentials restored.
As the legal battle unfolds, the judge's decision will have significant implications for how the White House can manage press access. Legal experts say the case could set a precedent for whether presidents can selectively exclude reporters based on the content of their coverage, a practice that has historically been viewed as a violation of the First Amendment.
The White House has signaled it may continue to fight the injunction, and the Justice Department has argued that the president has broad discretion over access to restricted areas. But the media outlets contend that the administration's actions are a clear attempt to punish unfavorable coverage, which they say is unconstitutional.
The ruling is expected by Tuesday, and both sides are preparing for a prolonged legal fight. For now, the three outlets retain their credentials, but the broader question of whether the president can impose such bans remains unresolved.
