2026-09-24T05:07:06.495Z / 路透社
9月24日（路透社）——一名联邦法官周四下令美国总统唐纳德·特朗普恢复美国有线电视新闻网、MS NOW和政治报记者的白宫采访权限，并称特朗普对这三家媒体的禁令很可能违宪。
这是特朗普在其与媒体的重大交锋中遭遇的一次重大挫折，美国地区法官蒂姆·凯利就上述新闻机构提起的诉讼作出裁决。这些新闻机构对特朗普9月18日宣布的禁令提出异议。
《虚假信息监测》简报汇总全球虚假信息叙事，每期都设有“真实还是虚假？”问答环节。点击此处订阅。
凯利下令特朗普政府立即恢复这三家媒体的记者证，并禁止官员在14天内执行该禁令。法官驳回了政府所称禁令出于国家安全考量的说法。
“现有记录无法支撑被告方的主张，即吊销原告的硬质记者证确实能保护国家安全，也无法证明在本次诉讼期间法院下令恢复记者证会危及国家安全，”他说道，并补充称特朗普本人曾表示，实施禁令是因为相关媒体的报道“据称缺乏真实性且充满负面论调”。
白宫和涉事媒体的代表并未立即回复置评请求。
特朗普曾在社交媒体上表示，这三家媒体“不应该持续编造或报道虚构内容与谎言”，而美国司法部律师也曾试图以国家安全为由为该禁令辩护。
这三家媒体周一在华盛顿联邦法院起诉特朗普及其政府多名官员，称该禁令违反了美国宪法第一修正案对言论自由和新闻自由的保护，同时也侵犯了它们的正当程序权利。它们请求发布临时限制令，以便在法律诉讼推进期间立即恢复白宫采访权限。
这场法律争端恰逢11月3日中期选举数周前，特朗普所在的共和党正力争保住国会控制权。受伊朗局势和通胀等问题引发的担忧影响，特朗普的支持率在民调中处于历史低位。
凯利在周三的听证会上表示，美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的两项先例明确表明，记者在其白宫记者证被吊销前有权获得正当程序。法官补充称，白宫似乎并未给予涉事新闻机构有意义的机会对吊销采访权限的决定提出异议。
涉事媒体的一名律师告诉凯利，它们被吊销权限时未收到法律要求的提前通知，也没有机会对该决定提出异议，他称这是前所未有的、不合理且严厉的处罚。
一名司法部律师告诉法官，特朗普政府在周二发给这些新闻机构的信函中已为吊销记者证提供了充分解释。但法官对这一说法表示怀疑，指出这些信函是在吊销权限决定作出且诉讼提起之后才发出的。
在周二的一份法律文件中，司法部辩称，进入白宫是一项特权而非权利，总统有权暂停新闻机构的采访权限。
一个由新闻自由团体和数十家新闻机构组成的联盟周三提交了一份法律意见书，支持这三家新闻媒体。它们主张“因认为编辑观点有问题而剥夺记者和新闻机构的权利，违反了最高法院数十年来的判例”。
这份意见书由记者自由新闻委员会、路透社、《华盛顿邮报》和福克斯新闻等机构签署。
简·沃尔夫与杰克·奎因报道；海伦·科斯特、史蒂夫·霍兰与里沙布·贾斯瓦尔补充报道；林肯·菲斯特编辑。
Judge blocks Trump’s White House media ban, orders access to be restored
2026-09-24T05:07:06.495Z / Reuters
Sept 24 (Reuters) – A federal judge ordered US President Donald Trump on Thursday to restore White House access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, saying his ban on the three media outlets was likely unconstitutional.
In a major setback for Trump in one of his biggest battles with the media, US District Judge Tim Kelly issued his order in a lawsuit that the news organizations filed contesting the ban that the Republican president announced on September 18.
The Misinformation Monitor newsletter rounds up international misinformation narratives, with a “Real or Fake?” quiz in every edition. Sign up here.
Kelly ordered the Trump administration to immediately return the outlets’ press passes and blocked officials from enforcing the ban for 14 days. The judge rejected the government’s assertion that the ban was motivated by national security concerns.
“The record lacks factual support for defendants’ contention that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will be endangered if the court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds,” he said, adding that Trump himself had stated the ban was due to “alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity” of the outlets’ reporting.
The White House and representatives for the outlets did not immeidately respond to requests for comment.
Trump had said on social media that the three outlets “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES,” and Justice Department lawyers had sought to justify the ban on national security grounds.
The three outlets sued Trump and other members of his administration in federal court in Washington on Monday, saying the ban violated the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections for free speech and a free press, as well as their due process rights. They requested a temporary restraining order that would immediately reinstate their White House access while their legal challenge plays out.
The legal battle has unfolded just weeks before the November 3 midterm elections in which Trump’s fellow Republicans are fighting to retain control of Congress. Trump’s job approval ratings are at record lows in opinion polls amid concerns over issues such as the Iran war and inflation.
Kelly said at a Wednesday hearing that two precedents from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made clear that journalists are entitled to due process before their White House press passes can be revoked. The judge added that it did not appear that the White House had given the targeted news outlets a meaningful opportunity to contest the revocation of their access.
A lawyer for the news outlets told Kelly that they were banned without legally required advance notice or opportunity to contest the decisions, which he said were unprecedented, unreasonable and severe punishments.
A Justice Department lawyer told the judge the Trump administration provided a sufficient explanation for the revocation of the press passes in letters sent to the news outlets on Tuesday. But the judge signaled skepticism of that argument, noting that the letters were sent after the revocation occurred and the lawsuit was filed.
In a legal filing on Tuesday, the Justice Department argued that access to the White House is a privilege, not an entitlement, and that the president has the authority to suspend access by news organizations.
A coalition of press freedom groups and dozens of news organizations filed a legal brief on Wednesday supporting the three news outlets. They asserted that “stripping journalists and news outlets of their rights because of perceived editorial viewpoint violates decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence.”
The brief was signed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reuters, the Washington Post and Fox News, among others.
Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Jack Queen; Additional reporting by Helen Coster, Steve Holland and Rishabh Jaiswal; Editing by Lincoln Feast.
发表回复