DOJ says Trump can bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House
In an Oct 2 court filing, the Justice Department argued that President Trump may bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. The outlets are seeking a preliminary injunction to extend a temporary order that restored their access.
1 / 2
The story, neutrally told
Mixed · 2In a court filing on Oct 2, the Justice Department argued that President Donald Trump can legally bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds. DeadlineN “The Justice Department argued that Donald Trump can legally ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House” Read at Deadline ↗ The Straits TimesRC “In a court filing on Oct 2, the White House again argued that its move in September to bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico” Read at The Straits Times ↗ Right · 1The filing says presidents "have long decided which journalists should receive privileged access, which has varied substantially from administration to administration". The Straits TimesRC “have long decided which journalists should receive privileged access, which has varied substantially from administration to administration” Read at The Straits Times ↗ Centre · 1The DOJ argues Trump determined the outlets did not meet the "minimum requirements of professionalism", and that publishing classified and sensitive national security information is "a significant violation of decorum". DeadlineN “they didn’t meet the “minimum requirements of professionalism.””“it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information” Read at Deadline ↗
Mixed · 2Trump announced the ban on Sept 18. The outlets sued, and a federal judge issued a 14-day temporary restraining order requiring the White House to restore their press passes. That order expires on Oct 8. The Straits TimesRC “Trump announced on Sept 18 that he would bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico”“That order expires on Oct 8” Read at The Straits Times ↗ DeadlineN “forced the White House to reinstate dozens of their reporters’ hard passes” Read at Deadline ↗ Mixed · 2The outlets now seek a preliminary injunction to extend access, arguing the ban violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They say Trump imposed it to coerce favourable coverage and punish reporting he dislikes, and that the White House later "got to work backfilling contrived justifications". DeadlineN “violation of their First and Fifth amendment rights”“to punish and chill journalism they dislike” Read at Deadline ↗ The Straits TimesRC “got to work backfilling contrived justifications for it” Read at The Straits Times ↗ Right · 1The filing says the administration would have "taken the same action anyway" regardless of the outlets' criticism of Trump. It also says denying special access is not an adverse action that would chill reporting. The White House says the outlets failed professional standards, threatened national security or spread falsehoods, claims the outlets vigorously oppose. The Straits TimesRC “would have “taken the same action anyway””“The mere denial of special access is not an adverse action that would objectively chill”“claims vigorously opposed by the companies” Read at The Straits Times ↗
Right · 1The DOJ says the outlets did not contest the revocation to the White House by a Sept 25 deadline, so the decision became "final", although the court's order blocked it from taking effect. The Straits TimesRC “the media outlets had not contested their access revocation directly to the White House, which imposed a deadline of Sept 25” Read at The Straits Times ↗ Centre · 1Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, says he is bound by the 1977 D.C. Circuit ruling Sherrill v. Knight, which held that press access must not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. The DOJ argues Sherrill still allows the restriction because the White House has a compelling interest. DeadlineN “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons”“the White House has a “compelling interest.”” Read at Deadline ↗ Centre · 1In granting the restraining order, Kelly found the White House failed to provide due process. The DOJ's letters to the outlets were sent Sept. 22, four days after the ban began, and Kelly noted they left open that the stories fell into the "spread falsehoods" category rather than national security. DeadlineN “Kelly concluded that the White House failed to provide due process to the news outlets”“those letters were sent on Sept. 22, four days after Trump’s ban was started” Read at Deadline ↗
Mixed · 2Even after access was restored, Trump twice excluded CNN from the TV pool, which five networks rotate. The other networks declined to substitute, leaving no pool coverage on those occasions. CNN has also been restricted from travel on Air Force One. The Straits TimesRC “Trump twice excluded CNN from fulfilling its role in the TV pool”“declined to substitute for the network” Read at The Straits Times ↗ DeadlineN “including travel with Trump on Air Force One” Read at Deadline ↗ Mixed · 2Asked whether it would reimpose the ban if the court declined to keep blocking it, the White House responded with a statement praising Trump's accessibility. Kelly has set a hearing for Thursday and said he will rule "expeditiously". The Straits TimesRC “responded with a statement praising Trump’s accessibility”“will rule “expeditiously”” Read at The Straits Times ↗ DeadlineN “Kelly has set a hearing for Thursday” Read at Deadline ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.
Left0 outlets
No left outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
Centre1 outlet
- Framing
- Legal-analysis angle led by the DOJ's 'minimum requirements of professionalism' argument and the Sherrill v. Knight precedent.
- Emphasis
- Court precedent, Judge Kelly's earlier due-process findings, and the outlets' lawyers' rebuttal.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not mention the 'taken the same action anyway' argument or the Sept 25 appeal deadline.
- Charged language
- “minimum requirements of professionalism”
- For example
-
“Kelly concluded that the White House failed to provide due process to the news outlets” — Deadline
Right1 outlet
- Framing
- Straits Times runs a New York Times report that leads with the White House's claim of presidential authority and notes the outlets' First Amendment objections.
- Emphasis
- Government arguments on access, the 'final' decision, and the pool exclusions of CNN.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Omits the Sherrill precedent and Kelly's due-process finding.
- Charged language
- “contrived justifications”
- For example
-
“The media outlets have said the ban violated their First Amendment rights.” — The Straits Times
What every side reports
- Trump announced the ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico on Sept 18.
- A federal judge issued a temporary order restoring the outlets' access, expiring Oct 8.
- The DOJ filed its argument on Oct 2 against a preliminary injunction.
- CNN has still been excluded from some pool coverage.
Where accounts differ
-
Why the ban was imposed
- Centre
- Deadline: the outlets say Trump's statements show the ban was meant to coerce favourable coverage and punish journalism; DOJ cites professionalism and national security.
- Right
- Straits Times (NYT copy): the White House says it would have acted anyway regardless of criticism; outlets say justifications were backfilled.
White House organisation
Says the president has long decided who gets privileged access, that the outlets failed professional standards, and that it would have acted anyway.
“would have “taken the same action anyway”” — The Straits Times
Donald Trump person
Announced the ban on Sept 18; the DOJ says he determined the outlets fell short of professional standards.
“because he determined that they didn’t meet the “minimum requirements of professionalism.”” — Deadline
Left0 articles
No coverage yet.
Centre1 article
-
Neutral Detailed legal account centred on the DOJ's argument, precedent and the judge's earlier findings.

Right1 article
-
White House filing claims president has authority to bar news outlets
Neutral NYT copy summarising the government filing and outlets' objections, with pool-exclusion context.
- 3 Oct 05:25 First The Straits TimesRC White House filing claims president has authority to bar news outlets
- 3 Oct 05:36 +12m DeadlineN DOJ Argues CNN & Other Outlets Can Be Banned From White House If Trump Determines They Didn’t Meet “Minimum Requirements Of Professionalism”
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.