2026-09-24T21:07:58.939Z / CNN
CNN、MS NOW和《政客报》的记者于周四获准重新进入白宫，距离联邦法官暂时恢复它们的媒体通行证已过去约10小时。
但这场围绕唐纳德·特朗普总统禁止三家媒体进入白宫园区的法律纠纷，至少在未来几周内仍将持续。
法官蒂莫西·凯利于美国东部时间凌晨1点下达的临时限制令，仅叫停特朗普对这三家媒体的禁令，有效期定为14天。
凯利将审理媒体机构提出的长期禁令申请。目前仍存在诸多疑问，包括CNN、MS NOW和《政客报》能否参与报道总统相关的其他活动，以及白宫媒体池的地位问题。
与此同时，特朗普政府司法部在法庭上表示，希望推翻一项有50年历史的、关于白宫媒体准入权的先例。
以下是需要了解的关键信息：
目前，此案仍由凯利法官审理。
他接下来将决定是否有充分理由和足够证据，下达类似的法院命令——即初步禁令——恢复媒体准入权，以便在案件审理期间长期保留该权限。
凯利要求相关媒体在周一之前提交初步禁令申请。特朗普政府必须在10月2日（周五）之前作出回应，媒体原告方则需在10月5日（周一）之前提交最终书面陈述。
这位在特朗普第一任期内获任命的法官表示，他将在日后安排听证会，但计划“迅速”作出裁决。凯利目前的恢复媒体准入权的法院命令将于10月8日到期。
特朗普曾公开表示，计划对不利于自己的裁决提起上诉——但从程序上讲，在法官就初步禁令申请作出裁决之前，无法启动上诉程序。
就凯利的审理而言，司法部可以在法庭上完善其论点，特朗普政府也可能在白宫媒体准入问题上采取其他行动，尤其是针对CNN、MS NOW和《政客报》。
与此同时，这三家主流媒体的律师可能会继续记录其记者进入白宫园区、采访特朗普的权限（或缺乏权限的情况），并向凯利辩称，根据包括第一修正案在内的宪法基本保护条款，他们应该能够继续在白宫进行报道。
不过，特朗普随时可以让步，终止诉讼程序。此前针对暂停个别白宫媒体通行证的类似尝试，包括2018年CNN记者吉姆·阿科斯塔的事件，都是以这种方式结束的。
凯利为白宫留下了提供更多事实和证据的空间，尤其是在政府试图辩称允许这三家新闻机构进入大楼会危及国家安全的情况下。
在周三的听证会上，司法部一名律师指出，相关先例曾考虑过政府可以对在白宫园区对着总统做鬼脸的记者采取行动的可能性。
https://www.cnn.com/
CNN的达娜·巴什解读特朗普白宫媒体禁令的利害关系
0:53 • 来源：CNN
“如果是玫瑰园里发生的特定事件，总统应该能够立即采取行动保护国家安全，”司法部律师迈克尔·维尔奇克说道。
截至目前，凯利已驳回了国家安全担忧可作为禁令理由的主张，至少以白宫目前在法庭上提交的案例和事实依据来看是如此。
法官的第一个理由是：特朗普本人上周五宣布禁止三家媒体进入白宫，理由是“原告的报道被指缺乏真实性且充满负面色彩”。总统在数天内都未提及国家安全问题。
“至少就目前的记录而言，法院怀疑——被告方维护国家安全的利益，并非撤销原告硬通行证的真正动机，甚至与该撤销行为无关，”凯利写道。
凯利表示，在CNN、MS NOW和《政客报》提起诉讼后，政府后来对禁令作出的解释，在是否真正涉及国家安全风险方面“含糊不清”。
法官还指出，白宫所称存在风险的报道——关于特朗普东翼舞厅的规划、伊朗战争以及其他议题——都属于“常规报道”。
没有任何一篇报道造成了如此严重的国家安全紧急事件，或达到需要吊销白宫通行证的异常程度——比如国际毒贩正在转移赃物的情况，凯利说道。
法官补充道，其中几篇报道甚至并非由持有白宫媒体通行证的记者撰写，而一名CNN记者的通行证在她撰写了一篇如今被政府视为有问题的报道数月后才得以续签。
最后，关于国家安全担忧，法官指出，政府目前在法庭上用以描述风险的依据是一名五角大楼官员。这名公关官员身处白宫之外，并不了解记者在白宫内部的工作方式。
特朗普政府官员“没有理由让人相信，记者持有硬通行证与所认定的报道存在必然联系”，凯利写道。
不过，随着案件推进，特朗普政府可以继续提出国家安全担忧，并向法官提供更多证据和案例。
特朗普已经暗示，在最初失利后让步可能并非本届政府此次的行事风格。本周早些时候，这位总统称凯利——他在九年前任命其进入联邦法院——可能会作出不利于自己的裁决，并誓言将提起上诉。
如果特朗普想在法庭上获胜，可能需要提起上诉。凯利在周四的命令中表示，他必须遵循有50年历史的判例法，该法律规定白宫不得在未经过正当程序的情况下吊销媒体通行证。凯利所在的美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的三名法官组成的合议庭，也无法推翻先前案件中确立的正当程序要求。
https://www.cnn.com/
等待恢复白宫准入权限的CNN记者
2:39 • 来源：CNN
但司法部已经在提交给凯利的文件中表示，希望尝试推翻这项法律。
司法部一名律师在本周提交给凯利的文件中辩称，1977年哥伦比亚特区巡回法院作出的、为白宫媒体通行证持有者确立正当程序的判决“是错误的，应当予以推翻”。
这种可能性要到上诉程序的后续阶段才会出现，例如，如果一起关于总统政府突然吊销白宫媒体徽章的案件提交给由11名法官组成的哥伦比亚特区巡回法院全体合议庭审理。此案甚至可能上诉至最高法院。
在案件审理期间，三家媒体还需遵守另一项次要的法院命令：它们必须缴纳保证金，以防法院认定其存在不当行为。凯利在周四晚间的命令中确定了保证金的金额。
法官裁定金额为1美元。
CNN的蒂尔尼·斯尼德对本文亦有贡献。
Trump sought to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. Here’s what happens next
2026-09-24T21:07:58.939Z / CNN
Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were allowed back into the White House on Thursday roughly 10 hours after a federal judge temporarily reinstated their press credentials.
But the legal fight over President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban the three outlets from the grounds may continue over the next few weeks at least.
Judge Timothy Kelly’s 1 a.m. ET temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s ban on the three outlets only is scheduled to last 14 days.
Kelly will entertain a request from the media organizations to issue a longer-term order. Questions remain about the ability to of CNN, MS NOW and Politico to participate in other aspects of covering the president and the status of the White House pool.
Meanwhile, Trump’s Justice Department has said in court it wants to overturn a 50-year-old precedent about White House press access.
Here’s what to know:
For now, the case stays before Judge Kelly.
His next step is to decide whether there’s reason and evidence enough for a similar court order – called a preliminary injunction – restoring press access that would stay in place indefinitely as the case plays out.
Kelly is giving the outlets until Monday to file the preliminary injunction request. The Trump administration must respond by Friday, October 2, with a final written submission from the media plaintiffs due by Monday, October 5.
The judge, who was appointed by Trump during in his first term, said he would schedule a hearing at a later date, but he planned to rule “expeditiously.” Kelly’s current court order restoring the outlets’ access expires on October 8.
Trump has publicly indicated he plans to appeal rulings against him – but procedurally, it’s not possible until the judge decides on the preliminary injunction request.
For Kelly, the Justice Department will be able to build out its arguments in court, or the Trump administration could make other moves around press access at the White House, especially for CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
At the same time, lawyers for the three major outlets are likely to continue documenting the access (or lack of access) that their journalists have to the White House grounds and for covering Trump, arguing to Kelly that they should be able to continue reporting from the White House because of foundational Constitutional protections, including the First Amendment.
Trump can, however, back down and end the court proceeding at any time. That is how prior attempts to ban suspended individual White House press pass holders, including CNN’s Jim Acosta in 2018, ended.
Kelly has kept the door open for more facts and evidence to come from the White House, especially as the administration tries to argue that letting the three news outlets into the building puts national security at risk.
At a hearing Wednesday, a DOJ attorney pointed to how a relevant precedent contemplated the possibility that the administration could take action against a journalist who had mooned the president on the White House grounds.
https://www.cnn.com/
CNN’s Dana Bash lays out the stakes of Trump’s White House media ban
0:53 • Source: CNN
“If that’s the case with a specific incident in the Rose Garden, the president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security,” DOJ attorney Michael Velchik said.
Kelly so far has batted down the idea that national security concerns justified the ban, at least with the current examples and set of facts the White House has presented in court.
The judge’s first reason: Trump himself announced he was banning the three news outlets from the White House last Friday because of “alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.” The president made no mention of national security for days.
“The Court is skeptical – at least on this record – that Defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote.
The administration’s later explanations about the ban after CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued were “ambiguous” on whether they actually were about national security risks, Kelly said.
The judge also noted that the news articles the White House said were risky – about the plans for Trump’s East Wing ballroom, the Iran War, and other topics – are “routine.”
None created such a national security emergency or were so extraordinary that the White House passes needed to be revoked – say, when international narcotics traffickers are moving loot – Kelly said.
Several of the stories weren’t even written by White House-credentialed reporters, and the credential for one CNN reporter was renewed months after she wrote a story the administration now flags as objectionable, the judge added.
And finally, on the national security concerns, the judge noted that it was a Pentagon official the administration relied on in court so far to describe the risk. That public relations official, sitting outside the White House, wouldn’t know how reporters work within the White House.
Trump administration officials “afford no reason to believe that the reporters’ possession of the hard pass was integral to the stories identified,” Kelly wrote.
As the case proceeds, however, the Trump administration can continue to raise its national security concerns and provide additional evidence and examples to the judge.
Trump has already signaled that backing down after an initial loss may not be his administration’s approach this time. Earlier this week, the president claimed that Kelly – whom he appointed to the federal bench nine years ago – would likely rule against him, and vowed to appeal.
Appeals may be necessary if Trump wants to win in court. Kelly in his order on Thursday said he is required to follow 50-year-old case law that says the White House can’t revoke press credentials without due process. A three-judge panel at the appeals court above Kelly, the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals, also can’t overturn the due process requirements set in prior cases.
https://www.cnn.com/
CNN journalists waiting for White House access to be restored
2:39 • Source: CNN
Yet the Justice Department has said in filings to Kelly already it would like to try to overturn that law.
A 1977 DC Circuit decision that set the law for White House press pass holders to receive due process “is wrong and should be overruled,” a Justice Department attorney argued to Kelly in a filing this week.
The possibility wouldn’t come into play until later rounds of appeals, such as if a case over White House press badges that a presidential administration abruptly revokes goes before the 11 judges of the DC Circuit, which is called sitting en banc. This case could even make its way to the Supreme Court.
While the case continues, there’s one more minor court order the three news outlets must follow: They will have to post bond, just in case a court finds they’re in the wrong. Kelly set how much that bond should be in his order Thursday night.
The judge determined $1.
CNN’s Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
发表回复