MS NOW, CNN and Politico sue Trump to undo White House ban

What set this off

Imagine showing up at work and security takes your badge. That is what MS NOW, CNN and Politico say happened to their White House reporters on Saturday. The suit says Akayla Gardner of MS NOW, CNN's Betsy Klein and Politico's Cheyenne Haslett were denied entry and a Secret Service officer collected their hard passes. This followed President Donald Trump's Truth Social post on Friday saying he would block the three outlets, accusing them of writing fiction and lies, citing "cumulative stories," and adding, "You get sick of it." He also warned, "Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow."

On Friday he also told reporters, "I think it's good to point it out, whether it survives or doesn't."

What the lawsuit argues

The lawsuit says, "This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles," and asserts that the action has already "severely impeded the ability of" these outlets to report on Trump and his administration. It notes that presidents have complained about press coverage since the early days of the country, but contends that the Constitution safeguards news organizations' and accredited White House reporters' liberty and property interests in their credentials and the access those credentials provide for the public's benefit. "No official can deprive Plaintiffs of those interests on a whim - with no notice, no process, and no warning - as the President did here," the suit says.

Legally, the complaint alleges three violations: the Due Process Clause, by imposing the ban without advance notice, an opportunity to challenge it, or clear standards; the First Amendment, by retaliating "against protected newsgathering and speech"; and the First Amendment again, by excluding the outlets "from a nonpublic forum for unlawful reasons," including viewpoint discrimination based on perceived "motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective."

Named as defendants are Trump; Steven Cheung, who serves as his communications aide; White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles; and Sean Curran, director of the U.S. Secret Service. The plaintiffs are the three outlets and the three named reporters. In a joint statement, the outlets said they were suing "to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes," adding that credentials were revoked "without notice or process" because the White House objected to their reporting. Their lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr., said, "The law is on our side across the board, and we look forward to presenting our arguments to the court as soon as possible." Jameel Jaffer, who leads The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University as its executive director, said, "We're glad to see that these news organizations are suing."

In uncertain times, protecting your savings with a steady plan can pay off. Join Briefs Finance CEO Jaspreet Singh on September 29th for a FREE live investor workshop, How to Profit From A Dollar That's Losing its Value, where he shows how we're spotting investment opportunities as the dollar falls. Save your spot.

What the court is doing and how the White House is responding

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a 2017 Trump nominee, ordered the Justice Department to respond to the temporary restraining order request by Tuesday and scheduled a videoconference hearing for 3:30 p.m. ET Wednesday. Kelly is the same judge who, in November 2018, directed the White House to reinstate CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass after it had been revoked.

Later on Monday, Trump explicitly named Kelly and brought up that decision in another post, writing, "The Judge's name is Tim Kelly, and he was, sadly, appointed by 'TRUMP,'" and suggesting an appeal is likely if he loses because "Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown 'sources,' shouldn't be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World."

The White House said the three outlets were removed "from the White House grounds after years of false reporting," arguing that while the First Amendment protects publishing, it "does not entitle them to a hard pass, briefing room seat, or place in the press pool." The statement said access changes are not new and claimed critics only treat access as sacred "when the outlets are friendly to the Radical Left."

The immediate fallout and why it matters for you

There were fast ripple effects. Sunday evening, the White House pulled CNN from its planned slot as the pool TV outlet for Monday's White House travel pool to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. The suit points to that switch as proof of "irreparable harm." After the lawsuit was unveiled on Monday, members of the White House TV press pool chose not to cover Trump prior to departure or while in New York due to the move against CNN.

This case lands in the same Washington courthouse where The Associated Press is already challenging a partial White House ban limiting AP journalists in restricted areas like the Oval Office and Air Force One. The limitation took effect in February 2025, after AP refused to use the administration's preferred rebranding that would label the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America."

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Monday, "I don't know much about it," then suggested the move could be justified by public dislike of "legacy media" due to perceived bias. Asked about a possible off ramp, he said, "We'll see.

A clear strategy helps you preserve capital and pursue sensible long term growth. Our CEO Jaspreet Singh is hosting a FREE live investor workshop, How to Profit From A Dollar That's Losing its Value, on September 29th. Sign up free to join him live.