President Donald Trump's latest battle with the press was on full display this week. And it appears to be far from over.
Trump announced Sept. 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico, which he described as “fake news,” would be banned from the White House complex. The news outlets sued over the ban Sept. 21, and the first hearing in the case was held Sept. 23. In an early morning ruling on Sept. 24, a judge granted a temporary restraining order and required the administration to reinstate the press passes while the legal fight continues.
Despite the order, the media outlets remained unable to enter the complex as the festivities for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit kicked off later in the morning, though they reported being let back in around
noon.
Press advocacy groups, First Amendment experts and other news outlets have criticized the ban and characterized it as a threat to press freedom.
"It's all intended less to win in court and more to intimidate ... and make journalists think twice about reporting critically on the administration," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told USA TODAY on Sept. 25.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly, in an email to USA TODAY on Sept. 24, accused news outlets of "performative outrage" over the issue and pointed to the White House's previous decision to take control of the press poolfrom the White House Correspondents' Association, which Kelly said resulted in greater "coverage opportunities to new media outlets."
"President Trump is the most accessible and transparent President in history, and all White House correspondents appreciate his willingness to take questions from the press almost every day, regardless of what they try to claim publicly," Kelly said.
Here’s what to know about where the case stands.
What comes next?
Ahead of U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly’s order, which said the ban was likely unconstitutional, Trump said he expected a ruling in favor of the news outlets and said the administration would appeal the decision if so.
The judge told CNN, MS NOW and Politico they must file their request by Sept. 28 for a longer restoration of their credentials than the 14 days he ordered under the temporary restraining order.
The Trump administration would have to reply by Oct. 2, and the news outlets could reply by Oct. 5.
Temporary restraining orders are not typically appealable. By contrast, preliminary injunctions – which can be in effect for the duration of the legal proceedings – generally are.
What did the judge say?
The news outlets’ federal lawsuit argues in part that the White House spaces they were banned from are nonpublic forums, making the restrictions "flatly unconstitutional" under the First Amendment's speech protections. They also say Trump violated their Fifth Amendment rights by not providing clear standards and a chance to be heard before denying them access.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that individuals cannot be "deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
Kelly’s order did not address the First Amendment claim by the news organizations but rather the Fifth Amendment arguments.
Kelly said he is bound "full stop" by the precedent of the 1977 Sherrill v. Knight case, when a federal appeals court ruled that the White House cannot arbitrarily deny press passes to reporters based on the content of their coverage if the White House has voluntarily opened its doors to media and established facilities for the press.
What are experts saying?
Legal experts said the news outlets have a strong case in challenging Trump’s ban and were skeptical of the administration’s argument that national security concerns were at play in the president’s decision. But they also placed the media ban in the broader context of the administration’s actions against voices Trump disagrees with.
Dan Greenberg, senior legal fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning public policy organization, referenced the FCC’s threats against journalists and ongoing legal fight with late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel, which experts have previously described as an unprecedented feud that could have a long-term impact on American broadcasting.
He also pointed to Trump’s assertion in August that “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker “will be reported to the FCC for rebuke or punishment” because of what he alleged was “purposeful inaccuracy” related to the results of his political endorsements. NBC previously told USA TODAY it stood by Welker, and experts at the time said any such punishment would not be consistent with the law.
“I really don’t think that previous presidents have been so brazen in their refusal to see that there’s a tension between their opinions about ‘fake news’ and respecting the values the Constitution protects,” Greenberg said.
Why are people making comparisons to China?
Chinese state media were in the White House covering Xi's state visit Sept. 24, while CNN, MS NOW and Politico – at least for a time that morning – remained barred from the complex.
“There’s quite an irony at a time when a government famous for repressing free speech, the Chinese government, is meeting the president, he’s engaging in the sorts of actions one would normally associate with Beijing,” Rodney Smolla, a professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School and senior counsel at the Washington, DC-based law firm Meir Watkins, told USA TODAY.
The international press advocacy group Reporters Without Borders ranks China 178 out of 180 countries on its World Press Freedom Index, calling it the “world’s largest prison for journalists.” The United States, which the organization said was “experiencing a significant and prolonged decline in press freedom,” was ranked 64 in 2026, a decline from 57 in 2025.
The number of international journalists working for American publications in China has plummeted in the years since Xi came to power, according to the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations. The Chinese government has long blocked online access to American news outlets and other digital content that challenges the government’s official narrative.
Though China’s constitution does establish the freedoms of press and speech, those liberties are ultimately subordinated to the interests and authority of the ruling party, according to Tamara Buck, a professor and chair of Southeast Missouri State University’s Department of Mass Media, Art and Design.
“You can be free as long as you follow our rules – those are not stipulations that the U.S. Constitution creates,” she said.
Jamie Fly, CEO of the Washington, DC-based nongovernmental organization Freedom House, which publishes an annual "Freedom in the World" index, similarly said the “scale and scope” of press freedom issues in the two countries is “fundamentally different.”
“There is no independent media in China, full stop,” Fly said. “It’s not a question of access – it's a question of existence.”
USA TODAY reached out to the Chinese embassy for comment.
Contributing: Miles Herszenhorn, Joey Garrison, Aysha Bagchi and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY
BrieAnna Frank's role covering First Amendment issues at USA TODAY is made possible by a collaboration among Freedom Forum, Journalism Funding Partners and the USA TODAY Network. Freedom Forum does not provide editorial input. Reach BrieAnna at bjfrank@usatoday.com and @brieannafrank on X and Bluesky.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump's media ban fight isn't over. What comes next
