A federal judge in Washington has ordered the White House to restore press credentials for CNN, Politico and MS NOW, ruling that the administration's decision to revoke their access likely breached constitutional due process guarantees. The ruling, issued by District Judge Timothy Kelly, marks a significant legal setback for the Trump administration's efforts to control which media organisations can report from the White House.
Judge Kelly wrote that the "general rule" is that "individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them" of a constitutionally protected interest. The three outlets had been banned from the White House grounds for six days, a move that drew sharp criticism from press freedom advocates and raised questions about the independence of the US media.
On Thursday morning, the outlets were initially turned away by the Secret Service, but later gained entry to the complex. However, CNN reported that two of its journalists were denied access to the arrival ceremony for Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was visiting Washington for a state dinner. MS NOW journalists were also reportedly barred from covering the event.
The White House Press Office had accused the three outlets of "trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information." The administration's letter to CNN echoed similar accusations against MS NOW and Politico.
The dispute began when the White House excluded CNN from the rotation of five major US broadcast outlets that share video footage from the White House. In a show of solidarity, the other four outlets—ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox—declined to participate in the so-called video pool, leaving no major American network broadcasting live from the White House during Xi's visit.
The legal challenge was brought by the three outlets, arguing that the revocation of their credentials without notice or a hearing violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights. Judge Kelly's ruling is preliminary, but it signals that the courts are likely to scrutinise the administration's actions closely.
This case has broader implications for press freedom in the United States, a topic that resonates across Europe, where media independence is a cornerstone of democratic governance. The European Union has repeatedly emphasised the importance of a free press, and the situation in Washington will be watched closely by journalists and policymakers in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.
The White House has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the ruling. Meanwhile, the three outlets have resumed their reporting from the White House, though the incident has highlighted the fragility of press access in the current political climate.
For European readers, this episode underscores the contrast between the US system, where press credentials are often granted at the discretion of the executive, and the more codified protections in many European countries. It also raises questions about the role of the media in holding power to account, a principle that remains central to the European project.
As the legal battle continues, the focus will be on whether the White House complies with the court's order and whether it will seek to impose new restrictions on the outlets. The outcome could set a precedent for how the US government interacts with the press in the future.
