2026-09-23T16:48:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻（CBS News）
作者：雅各布·罗森、斯特凡·贝克特
更新于：2026年9月23日 / 美国东部时间下午4:49 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯 — 一名联邦法官周三表示，他对特朗普总统禁止CNN、MS NOW和Politico进入白宫场地的做法持怀疑态度，并在一场听证会上称，这些媒体机构在被切断访问权限前未获得正当法律程序。
美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院法官蒂莫西·凯利就这一纠纷听取了三家新闻机构的律师和美国司法部的辩论。特朗普上周宣布，将这些媒体机构逐出白宫，原因是它们的报道。三家机构于周一提起诉讼，并申请临时限制令，请求凯利立即恢复其员工进入白宫综合大楼的权限。
凯利援引了哥伦比亚特区美国上诉法院的两起先例案件：2022年的“卡雷姆诉特朗普案”和1977年判决的“谢里尔诉奈特案”。这些案件确立了一项先例：当白宫试图剥夺记者的采访权限时，第五修正案规定的正当法律程序权利适用。
“我认为可以公平地说，”凯利在周三的听证会上表示，这两起案件中规定的程序“在本案中并未得到遵守”。
在听证会前周二晚提交的一份文件中，美国司法部表示，政府律师已向这三家媒体机构发送了信件，告知它们的采访权限已被撤销。信件声称，这些新闻机构“表现出违反了获准进入白宫综合大楼人员应具备的专业和礼仪标准的行为，包括传播关于国家安全和其他问题的可证实的虚假信息，以及发布敏感或机密信息”。
白宫新闻办公室给每家新闻机构留出了至周五下午5点的时间，就撤销其采访资质的决定作出回应。
但凯利就信件的发送时间向司法部提出质疑，指出这些媒体机构是在失去采访权限后才收到关于适当行为准则的通知。
“我不知道他们在通行证被撤销后才收到的一封信，怎么能向他们提供他们必须遵守的行为标准。这不过是一张写着‘你已经违反了这项规定’的纸而已，”这位法官说道。
代表这些新闻机构的律师泰德·布特罗斯告诉法官，这些信件“完全没有反映总统本人的说法”，甚至“远未符合正当法律程序或第一修正案的要求”。
“这些信件是在事后才提出的标准，”布特罗斯说。
布特罗斯还驳斥了政府所谓存在国家安全问题的说法，称这一主张是“事后找的借口”，“站不住脚”。他表示，政府将国家安全视为一种“护身符”和“咒语”。
“他们实际上是在辩称，记者不应该审查政府的国家安全决策和行动，”他在提及司法部的论点时说道。“这正是宪法第一修正案所明确禁止的——新闻记者和媒体可以追究政府官员的责任，对他们形成监督。”
布特罗斯指出，特朗普是在这些新闻机构提起诉讼后的周一才将国家安全作为撤销记者采访权限的理由，这就像是“突然灵机一动”才提出这一借口。
但司法部律师迈克尔·韦尔奇克辩称，“进入白宫是一种特权，而非一项权利”，并驳斥了布特罗斯关于总统因报道内容歧视新闻机构的说法。
他指出，特朗普经常批评包括美国广播公司新闻和《纽约时报》在内的媒体机构，但这些机构仍能进入白宫。
“如果记者在社交媒体上遭到批评就可以免责，那是行不通的，”韦尔奇克说道。
韦尔奇克还辩称，应当允许总统“立即采取行动”，通过迅速禁止记者进入来保护国家安全。
凯利在听证会结束时未当庭作出裁决，但表示他会“尽快”作出判决。
特朗普的禁令不仅立即影响了各家媒体进入白宫场地的能力，还波及了CNN在白宫电视联合采访池中的参与资格。该联合采访池还包括另外四家媒体：CBS新闻、ABC新闻、NBC新闻和福克斯新闻。
作为新闻联合采访池的一员，CNN原计划周一陪同特朗普前往纽约参加联合国大会，但因禁令被取消了随行资格。为此，其他四家电视网暂停了整个联合采访池的运作，以示对CNN的支持。
这五家电视网的联合采访池负责拍摄总统的活动画面，随后分发给其他电视联合采访池成员及其附属台和订阅用户。只有这些网络搭建并维护了从白宫以及随总统出访时向附属台传输画面的实体基础设施。
中国国家主席习近平将于周三晚些时候抵达华盛顿特区，但由于禁令，联合采访池中的主要电视网络将不会报道特朗普的相关活动。
Judge skeptical of Trump’s White House ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico
2026-09-23T16:48:00-0400 / CBS News
By Jacob Rosen, Stefan Becket
Updated on: September 23, 2026 / 4:49 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — A federal judge on Wednesday signaled he is skeptical of President Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds, saying in a hearing that the outlets were not given due process before their access was cut off.
Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from the attorneys for the news outlets and the Justice Department in the dispute. Mr. Trump announced last week that the outlets were banned from the White House for their reporting. All three filed suit on Monday and sought a temporary restraining order, asking Kelly to immediately restore their employees’ access to the White House complex.
Kelly pointed to two cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that serve as precedent: a case known as Karem v. Trump from 2022, and another known as Sherrill v. Knight that was decided in 1977. Those cases established the precedent that the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process applies when the White House tries to revoke a journalist’s access.
“I think it is fair to say” that the process laid out in those two cases “wasn’t followed here,” Kelly said in Wednesday’s hearing.
In a filing late Tuesday ahead of the hearing, the Justice Department said government lawyers submitted letters to the three outlets telling them their access was revoked. The letters claimed that the news outlets have “exhibited behavior in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information.”
The White House press office gave each of the news organizations until Friday at 5 p.m. to respond to the decision to revoke their credentials.
But Kelly pressed the Justice Department about the timing of the letters, noting that the news outlets only received notice about appropriate conduct after losing their credentials.
“I don’t know how a letter that they got after the pass was revoked could provide them with the kind of standards that they would have to conform their conduct to. It’s a piece of paper they got saying, ‘You’ve already violated this,’” the judge said.
Ted Boutrous, an attorney representing the news outlets, told the judge that the letters “completely do not reflect what the president himself has said” and did not “even [come] close to conforming with due process or the First Amendment.”
“The letters announced after-the-fact standards,” Boutrous said.
Boutrous also took issue with the government’s notion that there are national security issues at play, saying that assertion was a “post hoc” justification and “not legitimate.” He said the government views national security as a “talisman” and “magic words.”
“They’re literally arguing that reporters shouldn’t scrutinize national security decisions and activities by the government,” he said, referring to the Justice Department’s argument. “That’s what the First Amendment baked into the Constitution — that journalists and the press could hold government officials accountable, serve as a check on them.”
Boutrous noted that Mr. Trump only mentioned national security as a justification for revoking the journalists’ access on Monday after the news organizations filed their lawsuit, saying it was like a “lightbulb went off” to raise it as an issue.
But Michael Velchik, a lawyer at the Justice Department, argued that “access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” and rejected Boutrous’ argument that the president was discriminating against the news outlets based on the content of their coverage.
He noted that Mr. Trump frequently criticizes members of the media, including from outlets like ABC News and the New York Times, which continue to have access to the White House.
Reporters “can’t have a get-out-of-jail-free card” if they can find a social media post criticizing them, Velchik said.
Velchik also argued that the president should be allowed to “take immediate action” to protect national security by swiftly banning the reporters.
Kelly closed the hearing without issuing a ruling from the bench, but said he would make a decision “as soon as I can.”
Mr. Trump’s ban had an immediate impact not only on each outlet’s ability to access the White House grounds, but also CNN’s participation in the White House television pool, which also includes four other outlets: CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and Fox News.
CNN was supposed to travel with Mr. Trump to New York on Monday for the United Nations General Assembly as part of the press pool, but was removed from the trip because of the ban. As a result, the four other networks suspended the television pool altogether in support of CNN.
The five-network television pool captures footage of the president that is then distributed to the other members of the TV pool and their affiliates and subscribers. Only these networks have set up and maintained the physical infrastructure to transmit footage from the White House and when traveling with the president to affiliates.
Chinese President Xi Jinping is set to arrive in Washington, D.C., later Wednesday, but the major television networks in the pool are not providing coverage of Mr. Trump’s activities because of the ban.
发表回复