Trump Blocks CNN and Politico, Court Reopens the White House Door

【Financial News New York = Lee Byung-chul, Correspondent】  A court has put the brakes on U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to bar CNN, My Source News Opinion World (MS NOW) and Politico from the White House. A federal judge appointed by Trump found that the measure was likely unconstitutional and ordered the immediate restoration of the reporters' press credentials. Although the Trump administration cited "national security" as the reason for the ban, the court did not accept that argument at this stage.
On the 24th (local time), Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a 14-day temporary restraining order (TRO) against the White House's ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Kelly ordered the White House to "immediately return and restore" the press credentials previously held by employees of the three outlets.
Judge Kelly found that the media outlets were likely to prevail in the main lawsuit with their claim that the White House violated their constitutional due process rights by canceling the reporters' press credentials without prior notice or an opportunity to respond. At this stage, he also rejected the White House's argument that canceling the credentials was necessary to protect national security.
The ruling has drawn attention because Kelly was appointed directly by President Trump. During Trump's first term, in 2018, Kelly reached a similar conclusion in a case involving the revocation of CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press credentials. At the time, the issue was also that the White House had not given Acosta an opportunity to challenge the revocation.
The latest conflict began on the 18th, when President Trump said on Truth Social that he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their reporting. Starting the following day, reporters from the outlets were actually barred from entering the White House grounds. The three media organizations sued the administration on the 21st, arguing that the ban violated rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Other news organizations also scaled back coverage of some presidential events in solidarity.
In court filings, the White House argued that the ban was a temporary measure. It also claimed that the three outlets had failed to follow the White House's reporting conduct standards and that some of their reports "threatened national security and spread false information."
The court, however, first found a problem with the measure's procedural fairness. Theodore J. Boutrous, the attorney representing the media organizations, called it "a powerful decision affirming freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law." The ruling is a temporary measure that will remain in effect for 14 days and does not constitute a decision on the merits.




[email protected] Lee Byung-chul, Correspondent Reporter