2026-09-22T10:02:39.528Z / 路透社
2026年9月21日，美国华盛顿特区，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普将CNN、MSNBC和Politico三家主要新闻机构逐出白宫后，美联社在白宫园区的工位外悬挂了更新后的声援标牌，新增了CNN、MSNOW和POLITICO的标识。路透社/凯文·拉马克
[1/3]2026年9月21日，美国华盛顿特区，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普将CNN、MSNOW和Politico三家主要新闻机构逐出白宫后，美联社在白宫园区的工位外悬挂了更新后的声援标牌，新增了CNN、MSNOW和POLITICO的标识。路透社/凯文… 购买授权，打开新标签页 查看更多
摘要
公司
媒体诉讼称第一修正案保护新闻自由
法律专家表示，媒体不会因报道不受待见而被禁止进入
媒体通行证失效，CNN暂停 pool 电视报道
纽约9月22日路透电 – 四位法律专家告诉路透社，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普以不满其报道为由，将多家新闻机构逐出白宫的举措，很可能违反了美国法律中禁止政府基于观点进行歧视的规定。
特朗普周五宣布，将禁止CNN、MSNBC和Politico进入白宫，理由是他认为这些机构的报道是“假新闻”，这是其政府限制媒体准入的最新举措，也是这位共和党总统针对其不喜欢的新闻报道展开的更大规模施压行动的一部分。特朗普周六表示，他可能还会禁止其他新闻机构。
通过《每日案卷》通讯将最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，开启您的清晨。点击此处订阅。
广告报道！
法律专家表示，特朗普的禁令理由可能会在法律挑战中成为其致命弱点，因为美国法院长期以来一直认为，一旦政府向媒体开放空间，就不能以报道是否有利作为媒体准入的条件。
“他们不必允许任何人进入，但一旦开放，就不能基于观点或内容来决定谁能进入，”马里兰大学新闻学教授露西·达尔格利什说道。
白宫在一份声明中表示，这些新闻机构完全可以在白宫之外进行报道。
“假新闻根本没有资格要求在总统椭圆形办公室占据一席之地。他们散布的谎言有损美国公众的利益，也破坏了我们民主的根基，”声明中写道。
周一在华盛顿特区联邦法院提起的诉讼中，CNN、MSNBC和Politico称，这项禁令是对受第一修正案保护的合法言论的非法报复，侵犯了它们的正当程序权利。
“这项禁令对第一修正案的攻击再直接不过，对我们最基本的宪法原则的违反也再明显不过，”这些媒体机构说道。
美国地区法官蒂莫西·凯利曾在特朗普第一任期内阻止其禁止一名CNN记者进入白宫，他已安排周三就这些媒体机构请求发布临时限制令以阻止该禁令举行听证会。
媒体并非可以不受限制地进入白宫，总统对容量有限的严格管控场所（如椭圆形办公室和空军一号）的准入拥有更大的裁量权。
白宫长期以来的惯例是选拔所谓的pool记者，跟随总统出行并向其他媒体机构分发报道。CNN是电视pool的成员机构，该pool已于周一暂停报道。
华盛顿特区上诉法院2025年6月裁定，特朗普可能有权将美联社排除在包括椭圆形办公室在内的某些区域之外，但不能将其排除在整个白宫新闻设施之外。特朗普此前因美联社不采用他偏好的“美国海湾”这一称呼来指代墨西哥湾，而将其排除在报道其行程的记者pool之外。最终裁决仍在等待中。
媒体通行证失效
CNN、MSNBC和Politico在诉讼中表示，他们的记者周六被拒绝进入白宫园区，并被告知他们所谓的硬通行证——颁发给经过审核和认证的媒体代表的通行证——已被停用。
这些媒体机构表示，他们未收到禁令的提前通知，也没有机会对特朗普的决定提出异议，称这违反了第五修正案中关于防止政府不公平对待的正当程序权利。
第一修正案律师道格拉斯·米雷尔表示，政府如果认定记者构成安全风险，可以限制其准入，但必须有明确依据，并遵循既定程序，给予记者对其身份认定提出异议的机会。
“必须有非武断且令人信服的理由来限制准入，而以不同意某人的观点为由，在第一修正案下从来都不是令人信服的理由，”米雷尔说道。
今年3月，一名联邦法官阻止了美国国防部实施一项规定，该规定允许官员在记者寻求未获授权公开的信息时吊销其五角大楼媒体通行证。
国防部表示，新规定旨在保护国家安全。但《纽约时报》
(NYT.N)，打开新标签页
在诉讼中称，这些修改将允许五角大楼因部门认为不利的报道而禁止新闻机构进入。
美国地区法官保罗·弗里德曼批准了《纽约时报》的请求，发布了初步禁令以阻止该政策，称其违反了第一和第五修正案，因为该政策模糊不清、过于宽泛，且“将任何未得到国防部认可的新闻采集和报道都作为吊销记者通行证的可能理由”。
特朗普政府正在对该裁决提起上诉。
杰克·奎因在纽约报道；迈克尔·佩里编辑
Trump’s White House media ban faces long odds in court, legal experts say
2026-09-22T10:02:39.528Z / Reuters
An updated solidarity sign adding CNN, MSNOW and POLITICO hangs outside the Associated Press booth at the White House grounds after US President Donald Trump banned three major news outlets – CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, in Washington, D.C., US, September 21, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
[1/3]An updated solidarity sign adding CNN, MSNOW and POLITICO hangs outside the Associated Press booth at the White House grounds after US President Donald Trump banned three major news outlets – CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, in Washington, D.C., US, September 21, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin… Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tabRead more
Summary
Companies
Media lawsuit says First Ammendment protects press freedom
Legal experts say media can not be barred over dislike of coverage
Media passes deactivated, CNN suspends pool TV coverage
NEW YORK, Sept 22 (Reuters) – US President Donald Trump’s move to ban several news outlets from the White House over his dislike of their coverage likely runs afoul of US legal prohibitions against viewpoint discrimination by the government, four legal experts told Reuters.
Trump’s announcement on Friday that he would ban CNN, MSNOW and Politico for reporting what he deemed “FAKE NEWS” was the latest move by his administration to curtail press access, part of the Republican president’s wider pressure campaign against news coverage he dislikes. Trump said on Saturday that he might ban other outlets as well.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Report Ad!
The president’s justification for the ban could be its undoing in a legal challenge because US courts have long held that the government cannot condition press access on favorable coverage once it has opened a space to the media, according to legal experts.
“They don’t have to allow anyone in, but once they do, they cannot decide who gets in based on viewpoint or content”, said University of Maryland journalism professor Lucy Dalglish.
The White House said in a statement that the news outlets were completely capable of reporting from outside the White House.
“The Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office. The lies they smear are a disservice to the American public and tear at the very fabric of our Democracy,” the statement said.
In a lawsuit filed in Washington D.C., federal court on Monday, CNN, MSNOW and Politico said the ban was unlawful retaliation for legally protected speech under the First Amendment and violated their rights to due process.
“This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,” the outlets said.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly, who blocked Trump from banning a CNN reporter during his first presidency, scheduled a Wednesday hearing on the outlets’ request for a temporary restraining order blocking the move.
The press does not have unfettered access to the White House, and presidents have more discretion over access to tightly controlled spaces with limited capacity, such as the Oval Office and Air Force One.
It is longstanding practice for the White House to select so-called pool reporters who follow the president while he travels and disseminate coverage to other media. CNN is a member of the TV pool, which suspended coverage on Monday.
A Washington D.C., appeals court held in June 2025 that Trump likely had the right to bar the Associated Press from certain spaces including the Oval Office, but not White House press facilities writ large. Trump had banned the AP from the pool of reporters that cover his movements because it did not adopt the name Gulf of America, his preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico. A final ruling is still pending.
PRESS PASSES DEACTIVATED
CNN, MSNOW and Politico said in their lawsuit that their reporters had been denied access to the White House grounds on Saturday and were told their so-called hard passes, which are given to vetted and credentialed media representatives, had been deactivated.
The outlets said they were given no advance notice of the ban or opportunity to contest Trump’s decision, which they said violated their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment’s protections against unfair treatment by the government.
The government is permitted to restrict reporters if they are deemed security risks but must have a clear basis for doing so and follow established procedures that give reporters the chance to dispute their designation, according to First Amendment lawyer Douglas Mirell.
“There has to be a non-arbitrary and compelling reason to restrict access, and to say that you disagree with someone’s opinion has never been a compelling reason under the First Amendment,” Mirell said.
In March, a federal judge blocked the US Defense Department from implementing regulations that would allow officials to revoke reporters’ Pentagon press credentials if they sought information that was not authorized for public release.
The department said the new rules were aimed at protecting national security. But the New York Times
(NYT.N), opens new tab
said in a lawsuit that the changes would permit the Pentagon to ban news outlets over coverage the department viewed as unfavorable.
US District Judge Paul Friedman granted the Times’ request for an initial order blocking the policy, saying it violated the First and Fifth Amendments because it was vague, overly expansive and “makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department” a possible basis for revocation of a journalist’s pass.
The Trump administration is appealing the ruling.
Reporting by Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Michael Perry
发表回复