CNN, MS NOW and Politico, whose White House press passes a federal judge ordered kept in place on October 13, 2026, say the White House is still keeping them off Air Force One and out of the press pool. The outlets asked the court on October 28 to restore their pool assignments, while the government appeals the injunction.
Allegations in an Amended Complaint · Not a Class Action
The Air Force One and press pool exclusions described below are allegations in the outlets' October 28, 2026 amended complaint. The court has not ruled on them, and the government has not yet responded to the amended complaint. The court's October 13 findings are preliminary, not a final judgment, and are on appeal. This is not a class action and there is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03287, is the lawsuit CNN, MS NOW, Politico and three of their White House reporters filed on September 21, 2026, after President Trump announced on September 18 that he was banning the three outlets from the White House. Their hard passes, the credentials that give reporters regular access to the White House grounds, were deactivated and taken at the gate the next morning.Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the passes returned on September 24 in a 14-day temporary restraining order, which OpenClassActions.com covered at the time. Since then, the judge has replaced that order with a preliminary injunction, the government has appealed, and the outlets have widened the case to cover what they say is a continuing exclusion from Air Force One and the press pool.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
The October 13 Preliminary Injunction
After a hearing on October 8, Judge Kelly extended the restraining order by two business days to finish considering the motion, then granted a preliminary injunction on October 13. The order bars every defendant except President Trump, and anyone acting with them, from carrying out the September 18 decision to revoke the hard passes held by CNN, MS NOW and Politico employees. It keeps in place the status quo that has existed since the September 24 order, and the outlets had to post a $1.00 bond.The restraining order had rested on the due process claim alone. In his 26-page opinion, the judge found the outlets likely to succeed on that claim and on both First Amendment claims, for retaliation and for viewpoint discrimination. Pointing to the President's own announcement and later remarks, he wrote that "President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him."
The government had argued that the outlets' reporting threatened national security. On the record so far, the judge found that rationale looked like a justification offered after the fact: the President did not mention national security when he announced the ban. He also cautioned that his ruling should not be read to suggest the President's concerns about accuracy and fairness in reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its real aim is to protect national security after an unlawful disclosure of classified information. He denied the government's request to put the injunction on hold pending appeal.
The Government's Appeal
The government filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on October 14, 2026, the day after the ruling. The appeal is docketed as No. 26-5356. Because Judge Kelly refused a stay, the injunction stays in effect while the appeal proceeds unless the appeals court orders otherwise.What the Amended Complaint Alleges
The outlets filed an amended complaint on October 28. They say that while the White House returned their hard passes around midday on September 24, it has kept them out of the places where, by their count, the President takes the vast majority of reporters' questions: the Oval Office and Air Force One. According to the complaint:• CNN has been kept off Air Force One each of the six times it was scheduled to travel as the designated television network pooler since the ban: September 21 and 26, October 1, 16, 21 and 26.
• MS NOW has not been assigned to the secondary television pool since September 18, after serving in that slot roughly every two to three weeks in the months before.
• Politico was barred from two scheduled print pool trips on Air Force One, on October 5 and October 26.
• On several of those trips no other network took CNN's place, leaving the President's travel without scheduled television pool coverage.
The complaint quotes White House statements issued after the injunction. On October 14 the White House said "the Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President's Oval Office," and on October 20 it said no journalist has "a constitutional right to access to the President's Oval Office, Air Force One, or other sensitive and private facilities." The outlets say they wrote to the government on October 19 asking it to confirm the exclusions would end and received no answer.
The amended complaint now has four counts. Alongside the original due process, retaliation and viewpoint-discrimination claims, it adds a second due process claim arguing that CNN, after decades of paying for and staffing the pool, has a protected interest in performing its pool assignments. The outlets argue the Oval Office and Air Force One are nonpublic forums the White House has opened to the press, so access cannot turn on the content of their coverage. They ask the court to order their pool rotations restored on the terms that existed before September 18. None of these new allegations has been tested in court.
What Happens Next
The government will respond to the amended complaint, and the D.C. Circuit appeal of the injunction will proceed on its own schedule. The October 13 injunction protects the hard passes; whether the court will also order the outlets back into the pool and onto Air Force One has not been decided, and the outlets had not filed a separate motion for that relief as of October 29, 2026. According to the complaint, CNN is next scheduled to serve as the television pooler on October 31 and five more dates in November.Questions
Did the court order the White House to let CNN, MS NOW and Politico back on Air Force One?
No court has ruled on Air Force One or the press pool. The October 13, 2026 preliminary injunction bars the defendants other than President Trump from enforcing the September 18 revocation of the outlets' White House hard passes. The October 28 amended complaint asks the court to go further and order the outlets' pool assignments restored.
Does the government's appeal pause the injunction?
Filing an appeal does not by itself pause an injunction. Judge Kelly denied the government's request to stay the injunction pending appeal, so the hard passes remain restored while the D.C. Circuit considers the case, No. 26-5356, unless that court orders otherwise.
What did the judge say about the national security argument?
Judge Kelly found that, on the record so far, national security appeared to be a justification offered after the fact, since the President did not mention it when announcing the ban. He also wrote that his ruling should not be read to suggest the President's concerns about accuracy in reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.
Is this a class action?
No. Three news organizations and three of their reporters brought the case for a declaration and an injunction. There is no class, no fund and nothing for the public to file.
Sources
• CourtListener — Cable News Network, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03287 (D.D.C.) docket• Order granting preliminary injunction, ECF No. 49 (Oct. 13, 2026)
• Memorandum opinion, ECF No. 50 (Oct. 13, 2026)
• Notice of interlocutory appeal, ECF No. 51 (Oct. 14, 2026)
• Amended complaint, ECF No. 54 (Oct. 28, 2026)
