Is Trump's latest White House media ban legal? It could get complicated - USA Today

WASHINGTON – If recent history is the judge, President Donald Trump faces an uncertain legal landscape after his latest attempt to ban certain media outlets from covering him at the White House.

Trump announced in a Sept. 18 social media post that he is banning reporters from three major media outlets – CNN, MS NOW, and Politico – from the White House because he views their coverage as "FAKE NEWS."

Trump later said there wasn't a specific incident or story that prompted him to initiate the ban, which would not preclue the outlets from reporting on the president.

"It's really just cumulative stories over the last few years. You get sick of it," he said.

It's not the first time the Trump administration has taken such action against the press.

During his first term, the Trump White House in 2018 pulled the press credentials of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, complaining that he refused to yield the microphone at a press conference. However, a federal judge appointed by Trump later forced the White House to restore the press pass, saying Acosta hadn't been given a proper chance to defend himself.

And in early 2025, the White House blocked the Associated Press from the Oval Office, The White House East Room, and the press pool that sometimes travels with the president. The White House was upset because the AP declined to change its style for describing the gulf bordering the U.S. and Mexico from the "Gulf of Mexico" to the "Gulf of America." Trump had ordered the name change on official maps.

In the AP's case, one federal trial judge appointed by Trump temporarily blocked the ban. But two appeals court judges - also appointed by Trump - on the three-judge panel reversed that decision in a 2-1 ruling. The case is still being litigated.

The past controversial decisions make for an uncertain legal landscape if the latest media outlets decide to take the White House to court for the most recent ban.

A spokesperson for CNN told USA TODAY in a statement that the ban Trump proposes would be an "illegal assault" on the press. The network said it plans to continue its coverage.

"CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting," the statement said. "We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government."

Politico, in a statement, said the publication "will continue to fairly report on this White House and future ones" and "will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them."

Representatives of MS NOW declined to comment.

Trump dismissed concerns about violating the Constitution, telling reporters that the move is justified "because they’re fake news."

The president suggested he wanted to make a point, regardless of whether the ban withstands a court challenge.

"We'll see," Trump said when asked what makes him think his ban will be upheld in court. "I think it’s good to point it out, whether it survives or doesn’t . . . depends on the judge you get, to be honest with you. I don't think a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day."

“There’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories,” Trump added. “Now, if they want to write them, that’s fine, but I don’t have to let them into my, into the people’s house.”

Trump had few details on what the ban means in practical terms ‒ whether it's the revocation of press badges, removal from the White House pool, or blocking reporters from the targeted outlets from entering the White House campus.

“A very simple ban," Trump said. "I don’t want them in my office, I don’t want them here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can.”

The president bristled when a reporter asked whether he's trying to intimidate the media from doing its job. "I dislike dishonest press, like you. I think you're terrible. I like to see honest press," the president said. 

The AP initially had success in its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's ban. Washington, D.C. federal trial Judge Judge Trevor McFadden, who was appointed by Trump, ruled the ban probably violated the First Amendment's free speech protections and issued a temporary order blocking it.

"(U)nder the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists - be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere - it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," McFadden wrote.

However, in a 2-1 decision governed by two other Trump appointees, Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory G. Katsas, an appeals court panel largely struck down McFadden's order. It said blocking the White House from restricting specific reporters' ability to join other reporters in the Oval Office or the press pool interferes with the president's authority.

"While the AP has alleged financial loss from being denied access to the Oval Office, that harm does not, inour view, justify an intrusion on presidential prerogatives during this litigation," Rao wrote, in an opinion joined by Katsas.

Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, dissented, writing that her colleages' view "cannot be squared with . . . any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy."

Trump's latest targeted reporter ban appears to go further than the ban on the AP, barring reporters "from the White House," according to his social media post.

That may not hold muster even with the judges who largely ruled with the Trump administration before. Those judges did overturn an attempt by the White House to block the AP from accessing the White House's East Room, noting it is "a much larger space that can accommodate more members of the press." And those judges specifically noted the ban on the AP didn't block it from entering White House press facilities such as the main briefing room.

The AP's case is still under litigation.

Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, called the bans “thoroughly unsurprising,” particularly as Trump faces low approval ratings heading into the midterms. The institute is a Washington-based public policy think tank.

The news media is an “easy target” for Trump, Calvert said, and implementing the ban is likely to appeal to his political base that overwhelmingly distrusts mass media.  

Though it echoes Trump’s earlier ban on the Associated Press, Calvert described that as a “much more precise target” centered on a single decision – the news outlet refusing to adopt “Gulf of America” after Trump renamed the body of water widely known as the “Gulf of Mexico.” The ban was also limited to certain spaces, including Air Force One and the Oval Office. 

It's not immediately clear whether CNN, MSNOW and Politico would face similar restrictions or be barred from the White House entirely.

Barring journalists from the White House or other spaces where the government operates can make it “really difficult” to get information to report to the wider public, ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff told USA TODAY. 

A federal judge blocked a press policy the Pentagon implemented in 2025 that said journalists who "solicit" information not approved for public release could lose access to the building. The Pentagon then imposed an interim press policy that required journalists to be escorted through the premises at all times, which was also struck down. 

But the potential to get involved in a costly and time-consuming legal fight with the Trump administration may make some news outlets “think twice” about their reporting, Leventoff said. 

“In that respect, it doesn’t matter if he wins in court or not, because he’s still chilling the media from saying things he dislikes,” she said. 

National Press Club President Mark Schoeff Jr. said in the organization’s news release on the matter that Trump “weakens one of the nation’s strongest checks on those who hold power” by blocking access to his administration.  

He said the latest ban would be an “unprecedented assault on press freedom” if implemented and underscored journalists’ role in informing the American public. 

“A government confident in its actions should never fear independent scrutiny,” he said.  

BrieAnna J. 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.