CNN, MS NOW and Politico moved to sue the Donald Trump administration on Monday after their journalists were barred from the White House and had their press credentials revoked, escalating a dispute that is set to become a major test of constitutional protections for the press.
The three news organisations said they had notified the administration that they were filing a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking emergency intervention to restore their access to the White House.
Their complaint argues that the administration violated their First Amendment rights by allegedly retaliating against them because of their coverage and also infringed their Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking credentials without adequate notice or an opportunity to challenge the decision.
Credentials revoked
The dispute began on Friday when Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would no longer be permitted access to the White House, accusing them of publishing “fake news” and what he described as false reporting.
The decision was implemented on Saturday. CNN White House reporter Betsy Klein and MS NOW correspondent Akayla Gardner were turned away after their credentials were deactivated, while Politico White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett was also denied entry and had her badge confiscated.
The three organisations said the decision was taken without notice or due process and because the administration objected to their reporting.
They argued that allowing the ban to stand could enable the government to determine which news organisations receive access based on the content of their journalism.
Trump defends decision
Trump has defended the move, maintaining that he supports press freedom but arguing that news organisations should not be entitled to White House access if, in his view, they repeatedly publish false or unfair coverage.
On Monday, he again rejected suggestions that his administration was attacking the free press, saying his action was directed at what he calls “fake news”.
When questioned about the decision on Friday, Trump did not identify a particular report that triggered the ban. He instead criticised the outlets’ broader coverage of his administration.
The White House had not immediately filed a detailed response to the organisations’ legal arguments as of Monday morning.
Emergency relief sought
The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order that would immediately restore the outlets’ White House access while the broader constitutional challenge proceeds.
Trump, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, communications official Steven Cheung and Secret Service Director Sean Curran are among those named in the legal action.
The case could turn partly on whether the administration can restrict journalists from White House areas generally open to credentialed members of the press based on objections to their coverage.
The dispute also carries immediate practical implications. CNN had been scheduled to provide the television pool coverage for Trump’s Monday trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Pool arrangements allow one news organisation to provide footage and other material to the broader White House press corps when space or access is limited.
Earlier disputes cited
The latest confrontation follows earlier legal battles over White House press access.
During Trump’s first term, the administration revoked the credential of then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, but a federal judge ordered that his pass be restored.
The Associated Press also challenged restrictions imposed during Trump’s second term after it declined to adopt his preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico. A federal judge initially ordered access restored, while an appeals court later allowed restrictions to continue for limited spaces such as the Oval Office and Air Force One as litigation proceeded.
The current dispute is broader because CNN, MS NOW and Politico say their journalists have been barred from White House grounds rather than excluded only from limited-access events.
The White House Correspondents’ Association has called on the administration to restore the credentials, arguing that a standard allowing an administration to exclude one organisation because of its coverage could potentially be applied to others.
The federal court will now consider the outlets’ request for immediate relief as the broader First and Fifth Amendment challenge proceeds.