On September 19, 2026 the White House revoked the press passes of three news outlets—CNN, MS NOW and Politico—after President Donald Trump labeled their reporting “fake news.” The decision followed a social-media post made the day before, in which the president declared, “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President.” The move immediately barred the three organizations’ journalists from entering the West Wing, the press briefing room and other presidential spaces.
Reporters from the affected outlets reported being turned away at security checkpoints. CNN’s white-house team, MS NOW’s correspondent Akayla Gardner and Politico’s Cheyenne Haslett each described the badge deactivation as “above” the rank of the officer who carried it out. The White House Correspondents’ Association led by President Jacqui Heinrich, denounced the action on X, stating that it “violates the First Amendment.” Even a law professor known for conservative positions, Jonathan Turley, warned that the ban “would be an assault on long-honored principles of a free press.”
The ban in the context of Trump’s previous press clashes
Trump’s latest credential stripping is not his first attempt to curb coverage he deems unfavorable. During his first term, he tried to exclude CNN’s Jim Acosta after a heated 2018 midterm-election press conference. Acosta’s press pass was seized, prompting CNN to file a lawsuit that argued the White House’s action would create a “dangerous chilling effect” for journalists covering elected officials. A federal judge issued a temporary injunction, restoring Acosta’s credentials, after which the administration complied and the suit was dropped.
The pattern of revoking access resurfaced in 2025 when the administration limited the Associated Press’s ability to travel with the president after the agency refused to adopt the administration’s preferred term “Gulf of America” for the Gulf of Mexico. The ongoing dispute underscores a broader strategy of using credential control as a lever against critical reporting.
Constitutional arguments and key precedents
Critics of the September 2026 ban argue that it breaches both the First Amendment—which forbids government actions that abridge freedom of speech or of the press—and the Fifth Amendment right to due process. Legal scholars such as Frank LoMonte have emphasized that “the First Amendment guarantees all Americans freedom to speak and publish without government interference.” Yet, the judge who reinstated Acosta’s pass in 2018 based his decision largely on due-process considerations, not on press freedom alone.
Sherrill v. Knight and the due-process requirement
The 1977 D.C. Circuit decision in Sherrill v. Knight provides a decisive framework for the current controversy. The court held that once the White House establishes a credentialing system, it cannot arbitrarily deny or withdraw a pass without “narrow and specific standards.” The ruling obliges the executive to give affected journalists written notice of the factual basis for denial, an opportunity to respond, and a final explanation. Those procedural safeguards draw on both the First Amendment press protections and the Fifth Amendment guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of “life, liberty, or property.”
In the present case, the administration did not furnish CNN, MS NOW or Politico with a written statement enumerating the reasons for the revocation, nor did it allow the outlets a chance to contest the “fake news” allegation before the denial took effect. This procedural lapse strengthens the plaintiffs’ claim that the ban violates due-process rights.
On September 21, 2026 the three news organizations filed a suit seeking injunctive relief. Their complaint invokes the constitutional guarantees highlighted above and asks the court to restore their credentials while the merits are adjudicated. The same Trump-appointed judge who handled the Acosta case has been assigned to this matter, leading many observers to predict a swift temporary reinstatement of the passes, mirroring the 2018 outcome.
Regardless of the immediate judicial response, the episode has reignited a national debate about the scope of presidential authority over the press pool. Advocates from the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Radio Television Digital News Association and even right-leaning outlets have condemned the ban as an overreach. As the litigation proceeds, the courts will be asked to reconcile longstanding press-access traditions with the dual constitutional protections articulated in Sherrill v. Knight and related due-process jurisprudence.
