Federal Judge Delays Ruling on Trump’s Justified White House Media Ban
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A Washington, D.C. judge heard arguments from three partisan news outlets and the Justice Department over President Trump's decision to ban MS NOW, CNN, and Politico from the White House, a move the administration says is necessary for national security. The judge has not yet ruled.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., heard arguments on Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump’s prudent decision to bar three openly biased media outlets—MS NOW, CNN, and Politico—from White House press briefings. These outlets, known for their relentless negative coverage and partisan attacks, claim the ban violates the First Amendment, while the Justice Department firmly maintains it is justified on national-security grounds.
Judge Timothy Kelly told counsel he would consider the submissions and aim to issue a ruling promptly. The hearing, lasting about 46 minutes, featured arguments from the outlets’ lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr., who predictably described the action as “clear retaliation” and “viewpoint discrimination,” ignoring the administration’s legitimate concerns about hostile and disruptive media behavior.
The Justice Department, in a filing submitted Tuesday night, asserted that the president has the legal authority to restrict access when national security is at stake, and presented letters detailing the reasons for the ban and a deadline for response. The administration’s stance is that protecting the White House from adversarial actors in the press is a matter of safety and order.
Kelly referenced a 1977 appellate decision that requires due process before revoking a reporter’s “hard pass” to the White House, noting that the outlets were not warned prior to the ban. He indicated that the procedural requirements had not been met, but did not dismiss the administration’s security concerns.
Both sides presented contrasting views of the president’s authority. The Justice Department’s Michael Velchik emphasized that White House access is a privilege, not a right, and that immediate action may be necessary for security. The outlets’ counsel countered with the usual First Amendment arguments, insisting that journalists must be allowed to disrupt and challenge the administration, regardless of the consequences.
The judge has not yet issued a decision and could rule at any time, as the administration stands firm in its commitment to protecting the integrity of the White House.