President Donald Trump’s ban on three news outlets from the White House will test the First Amendment legal precedent that has long given journalists access and challenge the limits on executive power, experts say.
Trump announced on Sept. 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico – which he dubbed "fake news" – would be banned from the White House. Reporters from each news outlet were denied entry to the complex
the next day.The news outlets responded by filing a lawsuit on Sept. 21 that accused the administration of a "direct assault on the First Amendment" and a "blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles."
The new legal fight is the latest clash between the Trump administration and journalists that is putting the First Amendment's
free press guarantee into the spotlight. It also echoes one that emerged last year after Trump imposed a similar ban on the Associated Press over the news outlet’s refusal to adopt his preferred title of the "Gulf of America" instead of the "Gulf of Mexico."
That ban, however, was a "much more precise target," Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow at the public policy think tank American Enterprise Institute, told USA TODAY on Sept. 18. It was a restriction on one news outlet centered on a single decision, he said, and was limited to certain spaces – including the Oval Office and Air Force One.
The recent ban is "much more sweeping," and thus – according to Calvert and other First Amendment experts – more likely to be struck down in court.
"It’s one thing to deny access. It’s another thing to deny access because you don’t like the outlet," Roy Gutterman, a Syracuse University professor and director of the Tully Center for Free Speech, told USA TODAY on Sept. 21.
A district court initially ruled in the Associated Press' favor over the issue in 2025. An appeals court later restored much of the ban while litigation continues, saying that the First Amendment "does not control the president’s discretion in choosing with whom to speak or whom to provide special access."
USA TODAY reached out to the White House for comment on the lawsuit.
Why did Trump impose the ban?
Unlike in the Associated Press case, Trump said there was not a specific story or incident that prompted the ban on the three news outlets.
"It’s really just cumulative stories over the last few years," he said. "You get sick of it."
Trump didn’t initially provide details on how far-reaching the "very simple ban" would be.
"I don’t want them in my office, I don’t want them here," he said. "I would say the ban would go as far as you can."
What legal precedent did the lawsuit point to?
Among other legal cases, the news outlets’ Sept. 21 federal complaint pointed to Sherrill v. Knight, a 1970s case in which a federal appeals court ruled 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.
"It’s not an absolute prohibition on this sort of action, but it is strong precedent," Gutterman said.
The court said journalists have a First Amendment interest in obtaining a White House press pass, which "undoubtedly qualifies as liberty" that cannot be denied "without due process of law" under the Fifth Amendment.
At the same time, the court acknowledged presidents can use their discretion in granting interviews or press briefings, saying it would "certainly be unreasonable to suggest that because the President allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give that opportunity to all."
What are the news outlets asking for?
The three news outlets asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to declare the ban a violation of the First and Fifth Amendments and block the administration from enforcing it while litigation continues.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, was assigned to the case. He previously ordered the White House to restore then-CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press badge in 2018 after it was revoked following a contentious exchange with Trump at a news conference.
In the Oval Office on Sept. 18, Trump said his likelihood of success "depends on the judge you get, to be honest with you."
Why did a court uphold much of the Associated Press ban?
The extent to which First Amendment rights apply in a certain government-owned space depends on what kind of forum it is. Traditional public forums, including public parks and sidewalks, have the greatest First Amendment protection. In a nonpublic forum, such as an airport terminal, the government can impose speech restrictions as long as they are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
Though the district court initially agreed with the Associated Press’ argument that the spaces it was barred from are nonpublic forums, making a viewpoint-based ban unconstitutional, an appeals court later ruled that "restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion."
"The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted," the court said.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico's lawsuit also argues that the spaces their reporters are barred from at the White House are nonpublic forums, providing another opportunity for the court to define such spaces and the extent to which Trump has that discretion.
In the meantime, though, press freedom advocates and First Amendment experts are maintaining that the latest ban goes far beyond any legal bounds.
"There could be legitimate, objective reasons to limit the size of the press pool, but that's not what we're seeing here," Gutterman said.
Contributing: Joey Garrison, 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: Lawsuit over Trump media ban to test limits of White House power
