Federal judge delays ruling on White House media ban

A federal judge has heard arguments between the Trump Administration and three news organisations over the decision to bar them from reporting inside White House grounds.

In a brief hearing in Washington on Wednesday, Judge Timothy Kelly weighed a request from CNN, Politico and MS NOW for a temporary restraining order to urgently restore White House passes to 78 reporters.

A lawyer for the media outlets said that the White House is falsely arguing that national security concerns justify the ban. A justice department lawyer said the president has the right to "exclude anyone he wants" from certain locations inside the White House.

The judge said he would come to a decision as soon as he could.

Last week, President Donald Trump barred CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House, accusing them of spreading "fake news".

Their reporters had their passes confiscated and were denied access to the building, and the three outlets jointly launched legal action, calling the move unconstitutional.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico say they were stripped of their credentials because the President disliked their reporting.

Theodore Boutrous, representing the media outlets, argued on Wednesday that the White House had manufactured a national security argument as a way to retaliate against news organisations perceived as critical of Trump.

"They're literally arguing that reporters shouldn't scrutinise national security issues and decisions by the government," he said.

He noted that Trump never cited national security when he ordered the ban in a Truth Social post last Friday. The justification was added later on, he told the judge.

Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the US Department of Justice, opened his argument in court by asserting that "access to the White House is a privilege, not a right".

He claimed that the news organisations had published information that could harm national security, which Boutrous disputed.

"The viewpoint discrimination is probably the clearest case in history. I mean, the president said, 'I don't like what you're publishing. I'm taking away your press pass based on that,'" he told the hearing.

"They are using national security as this talisman — these magic words," Boutrous said. "It is just a pretextual, post hoc effort to justify just a blatant violation of due process."

He asked the judge to rule quickly, due to "urgent matters" that require news coverage, including the Iran war, the UN General Assembly taking place in New York City, Chinese President Xi Jinping's US visit, and the debate over AI regulation.

In court filings ahead of Wednesday's hearing, the justice department filed a series of "reporting incidents" they said justified the ban.

The filing cites a number of stories about construction at the White House - including about a security bunker and the building of a new ballroom, as well as a report on an internal information leak investigation.

The three media organisations have argued that the ban breaches their rights under the First Amendment, which forbids the government from "abridging" the freedom of the press.

In a joint statement confirming legal action against the government, they said: "Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists' credentials because it objected to our reporting.

"Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public's right to independent journalism free from government interference."

Forty-nine media organisations - including CBS News, The New York Times and Fox News - filed a legal brief in support of the lawsuit against the White House.

Major TV networks have withdrawn from a media-sharing arrangement of video and images of the president, known as the pool, in protest over the ban.

Shortly after, the White House launched its own streaming channel, Trump TV, which operates a 24/7 feed of clips of the president.