Trump's ban on CNN, MSNOW and Politico heads to court as experts question its legality

United States President Donald Trump's decision to bar three news organisations from the White House over their coverage is likely to run foul of American legal protections against viewpoint discrimination by the government, four legal experts told Reuters.

Mr. Trump announced on Friday (September 18, 2026) that he would ban CNN, MSNOW and Politico for what he called "FAKE NEWS", the latest step in his administration's efforts to restrict press access. On Saturday (September 19), he said he might bar other outlets as well.

According to the legal experts, the President's stated reason for the ban could prove to be its undoing in court, because U.S. courts have long held that once the government opens a space to the media, it cannot condition access on favourable coverage.

"They don't have to allow anyone in, but once they do, they cannot decide who gets in based on viewpoint or content," said Lucy Dalglish, a journalism professor at the University of Maryland.

The White House said in a statement that the news outlets were perfectly capable of reporting from outside the White House. "The Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President's Oval Office. The lies they smear are a disservice to the American public and tear at the very fabric of our Democracy," the statement said.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Monday (September 21), CNN, MSNOW and Politico said the ban amounted to unlawful retaliation for legally protected speech under the First Amendment, and violated their right to due process.

"This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles," the outlets said in their complaint.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who blocked Mr. Trump from banning a CNN reporter during his first presidency, has scheduled a hearing on Wednesday (September 23) on the outlets' request for a temporary restraining order blocking the move.

The press does not enjoy unfettered access to the White House, and presidents have wider discretion over access to tightly controlled spaces with limited capacity, such as the Oval Office and Air Force One.

It is longstanding practice for the White House to select so-called pool reporters who travel with the President and share their coverage with other media. CNN is a member of the television pool, which suspended coverage on Monday (September 21).

A Washington, D.C., appeals court held in June 2025 that Mr. Trump likely had the right to bar the Associated Press from certain spaces, including the Oval Office, but not from White House press facilities as a whole. Mr. Trump had banned the agency from the pool of reporters covering his movements because it did not adopt "Gulf of America", his preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico. A final ruling in that matter is still pending.

Press passes deactivated

CNN, MSNOW and Politico said in their lawsuit that their reporters were denied access to the White House grounds on Saturday (September 19) and were told their so-called hard passes — issued to vetted and credentialed media representatives — had been deactivated.

The outlets said they received no advance notice of the ban and no opportunity to contest Mr. Trump's decision, which they argued violated the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment against unfair treatment by the government.

The government may restrict reporters who are deemed security risks, but it must have a clear basis for doing so and must follow established procedures that give reporters a chance to dispute that designation, according to First Amendment lawyer Douglas Mirell.

"There has to be a non-arbitrary and compelling reason to restrict access, and to say that you disagree with someone's opinion has never been a compelling reason under the First Amendment," Mr. Mirell said.

The case now turns on whether a court accepts the administration's stated reasons for excluding the three outlets, or finds that the exclusion rests on their coverage — a distinction that has shaped previous rulings on presidential control over press access.