WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a court hearing Thursday, the former president’s lawyer confirmed that the White House media ban was imposed because Trump was displeased with the coverage from CNN, MS Now and Politico, a claim that the networks argue was an unjustified restriction on press freedom.

The case centers on a temporary restraining order issued by District Judge Timothy Kelly on September 24, which required the White House to lift the ban for a 14‑day period. Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, extended the order until Tuesday and indicated he would decide on a preliminary injunction later that day, keeping the networks’ access in place at least until then.

“The evidence shows that the ban was a retaliatory measure for the networks’ coverage, not an operational or security concern,” said Alex G. Smith, attorney for CNN, MS Now and Politico. “We have records of the president’s private briefing notes that explicitly reference the networks’ reporting as the trigger for the restriction.”

Judge Kelly noted that the ban had already prevented 12 reporters from the trio from attending a White House briefing scheduled for September 27. He also highlighted that the restriction had no precedent in the administration’s 27‑year history, where no such blanket prohibitions had been imposed on major news outlets.

In his ruling, Kelly cited the First Amendment’s protection of a free press and the principle that the government cannot selectively silence voices that criticize it. He warned that an extended injunction could set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future administrations to suppress dissenting media coverage under the guise of security.

Key Takeaways

• Judge Timothy Kelly extended the temporary restraining order until Tuesday, maintaining press access for CNN, MS Now and Politico.
• The ban was allegedly triggered by Trump’s criticism of the networks’ coverage, according to the lawyer’s testimony.
• The court’s decision underscores the importance of safeguarding press freedom against retaliatory government actions.

The outcome of the pending preliminary injunction will likely shape the legal landscape for media access to the White House and could influence how future administrations manage press relations during contentious coverage.