The Trump administration has asked a federal judge to ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, arguing the outlets have acted “unprofessionally” and citing a ruling that treats the Oval Office and Air Force One as private spaces. The legal filing, from the Department of Justice, pushes to apply that reasoning to the White House press room as well — a move that directly conflicts with a 1977 precedent guaranteeing equal press access.
Trump’s lawyers are calling Sherrill v. Knight “wrong,” and they point to last year’s Associated Press v. Budowich ruling, which found the Oval Office and Air Force One are private spaces not covered by First Amendment access. The brief cites “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information” as the grounds for cutting off the three news organizations. Letters cited specific reporting on East Wing ballroom construction or funding as the basis for the “unprofessional” behavior.
“Press access to the White House is a privilege—not a right.”
The Legal Fight at the Center of It
Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, granted the three outlets a 14-day restraining order so they can keep accessing the White House while he works on a full preliminary injunction decision. Kelly is expected to rule soon on a more long-term answer to the situation.
The filing argues press access to the White House is a “privilege—not a right.” That is the core of the administration’s position, and it rests on treating a public forum like a private one. The 1977 Sherrill v. Knight precedent requires equal press access; Trump’s lawyers are asking the court to apply the Budowich reasoning to the entire White House complex.
What the Administration Says
The administration’s position is that the White House is not a public space at all. The Budowich ruling already established that the Oval Office and Air Force One are private, but the filing argues the reasoning applies to the White House as a whole — including its press room. That is a radical expansion of the ruling, and it would gut the 1977 Sherrill v. Knight precedent that has protected press access for decades.
Trump’s lawyers argue that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have given the administration “compelling reasons” to cut them off. The letters cited specific reporting on East Wing ballroom construction or funding as the “unprofessional” behavior in question. The brief also points to the outlets’ use of anonymous sources and failure to verify facts before publication.
The Case Against the Ban
The administration’s argument that the outlets have given it “compelling reasons” to cut them off sounds like a complaint about the news, not a legal justification for banning them. The White House is not a private residence. It is the seat of the federal government, and the press has a constitutional role in holding it accountable.
The case is a test of whether the administration can rewrite the rules of access at will. The precedent is clear, but the administration is pushing back against it.
What Happens Next
Judge Kelly has already issued the temporary restraining order, which keeps the three outlets in the building for at least two weeks. The decision on the permanent injunction is expected soon.
The stakes are high. A ruling in favor of the administration would establish a principle that press access is not a right at all — that the White House can exclude reporters based on its own judgment of “professionalism.” That would give the administration unprecedented power to control who gets to cover it.
The administration’s position is that the White House is not a public space at all — that the press has no right to be there, only a privilege that can be revoked at will. That is a radical departure from how the institution has been run for decades.
The decision will come soon, and it will determine whether the White House remains a public forum or becomes a private club.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs free access to the White House for all accredited journalists and is against the Trump administration’s bid to exclude specific news outlets through court order. The administration’s argument that press access is a “privilege—not a right” is a direct attack on the 1977 Sherrill v. Knight precedent, which guarantees equal access to the White House press room.
The paper supports the 14-day restraining order granted by Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, keeping the three outlets inside the White House while he considers a permanent injunction. The administration’s attempt to treat the entire White House complex as a private space, citing the Associated Press v. Budowich ruling on the Oval Office and Air Force One, is a radical expansion of that ruling.
The paper would prefer the administration accept the 1977 precedent and stop trying to apply the Budowich ruling to the press room. It would also like the administration to stop complaining about specific outlets’ reporting rather than presenting a legal justification for excluding them.
See the video the story is built around at The A.V. Club.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.