US District Judge Tim Kelly issued a ruling requiring the Donald Trump administration to immediately restore press credentials for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico to the White House. At the same time, the court barred the government from imposing any restrictions on these outlets for 14 days. The order followed a lawsuit filed by the three newsrooms, which challenged the president's decision of September 18, 2026, to revoke their accreditation. According to Reuters, as cited by RBC-Ukraine, the judge found the administration's national security arguments insufficient to justify stripping the journalists of their access.

The Essence of the Court's Ruling

In the reasoning section of his decision, Kelly explicitly noted that the case record lacked factual evidence supporting the defendants' claim that revoking the plaintiffs' passes would genuinely protect national security, or that such security would be threatened if the journalists' access were restored during the litigation. The judge also drew attention to a procedural aspect: in his assessment, the journalists may not have been given a real opportunity to challenge the decision before their access was effectively terminated. In the court's view, this violates the right to due process of law enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The Parties' Arguments

US Department of Justice lawyers insisted that access to the White House is a privilege, not an unconditional right, and that the president has the authority to restrict it for specific media outlets at his discretion. In turn, the CNN, MS NOW and Politico newsrooms stated that the ban violates the guarantees of freedom of speech and the press enshrined in the First Amendment, as well as their right to due process. Trump himself explained the decision on social media by citing complaints about the quality of coverage of his activities: in his words, these outlets "should not be allowed to constantly write or report FABRICATIONS and LIES."

Contradictory Data

In a number of publications, the court's decision is described as a finding that the ban is "likely unconstitutional." However, in the text of the order, Kelly did not issue a final determination of the unconstitutionality of the presidential decree. The judge limited himself to stating that the materials presented were insufficient to confirm the necessity of the restrictions, and issued a temporary restraining order for 14 days. Thus, the question of the constitutionality of the presidential powers to revoke press credentials remains open and can only be resolved at the conclusion of a full trial. In addition, sources note that the ban is in effect "for 14 days," which underscores the temporary, rather than final, nature of the decision.

Media Reaction and the Broader Context

The court's decision coincided with already established tensions between the White House and major American TV networks. FOX News Media, ABC News, CBS News, CNN and NBC News had previously suspended joint coverage of events involving President Trump. This step was perceived by observers as a collective response to a series of restrictions that the administration had introduced against specific outlets. Experts note that the current precedent could be key in defining the boundaries of presidential powers in the area of press access to the executive branch.

What Comes Next

The 14-day temporary restraining order creates a window for further court proceedings. The Trump administration may file an appeal or request an extension, while the newsrooms may seek a permanent injunction against the application of similar restrictions in the future. The outcome of the case will have precedential significance for the entire American media landscape and for understanding the balance between executive power and the First Amendment.