White House Restores Press Access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico After Defying Judge's Order for Nearly 11 Hours

What happened

The White House restored hard-pass credentials to CNN, MS NOW and Politico on Thursday, Sept. 24, 2026, but only after initially denying reporters entry despite a federal court order issued hours earlier, according to reporting collected by Vox and the Everett Post.

The dispute began on Thursday, Sept. 18, when President Donald Trump banned the three outlets from the White House, writing that they "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES." He later told reporters, "it's really just cumulative stories of the last two years. You get sick of it." On Monday, Sept. 21, Trump accused reporters of "violat[ing] our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown 'sources.'" According to the media newsletter Status, one of those unnamed sources was Vice President JD Vance, who had spoken to reporters on a press call.

Early Thursday, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a first-term Trump appointee, granted a temporary restraining order in Cable News Networks, Inc. v. Trump, ordering the White House to "immediately return, reinstate, and restore" hard-pass credentials for the three outlets. Kelly ruled the ban likely violated the outlets' Fifth Amendment due process rights and set the order to last 14 days. In his ruling, Kelly wrote that the White House offered "little to back up their asserted national security interest," described the cited stories as "routine," and stated, "Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes was motivated by national security concerns."

Despite the order, reporters were denied entry Thursday morning. Attorney Ted Boutrous filed an emergency request on behalf of the outlets, writing, "Defendants have already repeatedly violated the Court's Order." Boutrous argued the White House's "Alice in Wonderland process" was "arbitrary" and "irrational," adding, "It's not due process when there's been a prejudgment of the issue."

Kelly ordered the government to respond to a non-compliance notice by 12:30 p.m. ET. In a declaration, the White House said access had been restored as of 9:55 a.m. ET. Around noon, CNN's Betsy Klein, whose hard pass had been taken Saturday, and MS NOW's Laura Barrón-López walked back onto the White House grounds, nearly 11 hours after the court's order, per the Everett Post.

At the hearing, Department of Justice lawyer Michael Velchik argued that notice letters sent after 10 p.m. Tuesday, days after the ban took effect, were sufficient process, and suggested the outlets' written responses might persuade Trump to change his mind. Kelly said he "intends to rule expeditiously" on a longer-lasting preliminary injunction, with additional hearings scheduled over the next two weeks. Trump has promised to appeal.

Why it matters

The standoff tested whether the executive branch would comply in real time with a judicial order limiting its control over press access, and the nearly 11-hour gap between the ruling and the actual restoration of credentials became the central fact of the day's hearing. The case turns on competing claims: the administration maintains the ban was a response to national security harms from stories built on anonymous sources, while the outlets and the court's initial findings characterize the revocation as retaliation without due process.

The identity of the judge has drawn attention from across the political spectrum. Kelly, appointed by Trump during his first term, ruled against the administration in this case, and his written skepticism about the national security justification now frames the government's burden as the litigation moves toward a preliminary injunction decision.

The story has drawn broad coverage. According to Ground News figures cited in the findings, 273 sources have covered the story, with a bias distribution of 35 percent left, 42 percent center and 23 percent right, and 124 of 155 rated sources carrying high or very high factuality ratings. The breadth of coverage reflects the constitutional stakes both sides describe: the administration frames the matter as a president's discretion over his own press operations, while press freedom advocates frame it as a due process question with implications for any outlet covering the White House.

The political reaction extended beyond the parties to the case. Former President Barack Obama weighed in, calling the ban a "foundational" issue and saying, "You can't do that and say that you are still living in a democracy." The administration has not publicly responded to Obama's remarks, and its stated position remains that the notice letters and the outlets' pending responses satisfy procedural requirements.

What to watch

First, Kelly's ruling on the preliminary injunction. He said he intends to rule expeditiously, and hearings are scheduled over the next two weeks while the 14-day restraining order remains in effect. A longer-lasting injunction would extend the restoration of credentials beyond the TRO's window.

Second, the promised appeal. Trump has said he will appeal, which could move the case to the D.C. Circuit and potentially shape the legal standard for when a president may revoke press credentials.

Third, whether the administration's stated rationale holds. Kelly found the record did not support a national security motive, and the government's written response, due by 12:30 p.m. ET Thursday, and the outlets' replies will form the basis for the next round of rulings.

Fourth, the treatment of other outlets. The findings cover three organizations, but the precedent established in this case could govern how the White House handles credential decisions for the wider press corps going forward.

By the numbers

Sources: https://www.vox.com/the-logoff-newsletter-trump/503750/trump-press-ban-court-ruling-cnn-politico-ms-now and https://www.everettpost.com/politics/some-banned-media-organizations-return-to-the-white-house-after-judges-order/