WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge weighing whether to block President Donald Trump’s ban of three news outlets from White House grounds expressed some skepticism Wednesday in response to the government's defense of the move.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated by Trump in 2017, didn't rule from the bench after hearing arguments in an extraordinary showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes.

But the judge questioned whether the administration met its legal responsibilities and provided CNN, MS NOW and Politico with adequate due process before banning them, assailing what he called “fake news.” More recently, the president has said negative coverage was dangerous for the country.

The news outlets argued they were singled out because of their coverage content — in other words, viewpoint discrimination — and called the ban a “blatant violation” of the First Amendment.

Kelly said his decision must be guided by prior rulings in comparable First Amendment cases, even if the government disagrees with them.

“I think it is fair to say that the processes that the court laid out wasn’t followed here,” Kelly said.

It wasn't clear when Kelly, who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar 2018 case, would issue a decision on the outlets’ request for a restraining order. But he said he’d rule as soon as possible.

“These are urgent matters," Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the outlets, said. "We’re at war. We have world leaders coming to Washington.”

CNN, Politico and MS NOW each told The Associated Press they’d have no comment on the emergency hearing.

Prior rulings indicate journalists should be heard before press passes are revoked

Kelly opened by reminding both sides that he’s required to apply case precedent.

The rulings in two prior cases over press access — including one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court — made clear that journalists were entitled to an opportunity to be heard before they have their press passes revoked.

Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that the rulings in the earlier cases were wrong.

“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Velchik said.

In arguing that Trump was not engaging in viewpoint discrimination, Velchik said the president had criticized other news organizations even more harshly — such as calling ABC “the worst” — but hadn’t banned them.

“The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security,” Velchik told the court.

In response, Boutrous said, “Suddenly it’s a national security case,” arguing that the president brought up that point only after the lawsuit was filed.

Trump “keeps proving our point,” Boutrous said, describing how the president has consistently used negative coverage of him as justification for the ban.

Boutrous called the ban an “unprecedented, unreasonable punishment” and said there was “not a semblance of due process.”

The Trump administration outlined ‘reporting incidents’ of each news outlet

In a filing late Tuesday, administration lawyers argued that the ban does not violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to a free press. It contended that the outlets, in their reporting, violated “standards of professionalism and decorum.”

The administration went on to detail letters sent to each outlet that identified “a non-exhaustive list of reporting incidents, including those that have threatened national security and spread falsehoods.”

The “reporting incidents” cited in the filing included: CNN reporting on “‘top-secret' construction details related to the East Wing bunker”; MS NOW reporting “on an alleged leak investigation”; and Politico publishing “a document detailing funding for the White House ballroom containing intricate descriptions of how the Secret Service would invest in security improvements.”

Further examples were given in individual letters. Politico’s letter detailed six reporting instances, including in June citing a “senior administration official … granted anonymity” predicting whether a preliminary deal would end the conflict with Iran.

That item appeared to reference a background briefing set up by the White House, where an official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House itself. Several other outlets also reported the official's remarks.

Major networks continue to refrain from covering Trump for the media pool

The ban prompted other media outlets to take action in solidarity. The five-network U.S. network press pool — a rotating cast of news outlets that covers the president, and to which CNN belongs — decided to suspend coverage of Trump events until further notice.

After the hearing Wednesday, the networks were poised to continue their ban on filming Trump coverage. At Joint Base Andrews, where the president was to formally welcome Chinese President Xi Jinping later, journalists from Fox News, CBS and NBC were present but not shooting video, and some appeared to be breaking down their cameras.

Other television outlets whose crews were present, according to signs on their tripods and cameras, were NewsNation, Newsmax, Right Side Broadcasting Network, One America News and LindellTV.

Ahead of Wednesday's hearing, an amicus brief was filed by other news groups, urging the court to immediately restore the three outlets' White House access.

The brief — filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the White House Correspondents' Association and 49 media outlets and industry groups, including The Associated Press, The New York Times and Reuters — says “the targeted expulsion of news media from White House grounds injures the public interest."

The proceedings are historic, said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

“No president has taken this explicit of a step” to ban entire outlets because he doesn’t like their reporting, she said. “There have been various presidents throughout history who have grumbled about the press or threatened to take more major steps, but really there was nothing at this level before Trump.”

___

Noveck reported from New York. Associated Press journalists Laurie Kellman in London and Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this report.

Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.