Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Judge Orders Trump to Restore White House Access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico; Trump Rolls Out Red Carpet for China's Xi Jinping. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired September 24, 2026 - 06:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[06:00:15]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: OK, thank you to Ed Lavandera from Texas. And our next hour of CNN THIS MORNING starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

CORNISH: And good morning. I'm Audie Cornish. We are following breaking news.

A federal judge orders the Trump administration: immediately reinstate CNN's access to the White House, along with the credentials with those at MS NOW and Politico.

Now, it was a late-night ruling. Judge Timothy Kelly found that the revoking of the reporters' press badges was done without adequate due process.

And he wrote this: "The general rule is that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government deprives them of a constitutionally protected interest."

He went on to write, "None of the defendants' arguments convinced the court that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their due process claim."

So, for those of us here at CNN, our journalists at the White House do plan to go to work today. We're keeping tabs on what that will look like.

But joining me now to discuss the ruling, I've got Sara Fischer, CNN senior media analyst and senior media reporter at Axios; and Katelyn Polantz, CNN crime and justice correspondent.

So, Katelyn, I want to talk about the two points that the judge offered up in the ruling.

One, the news organizations are going to the court and saying, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We can't be banned. And we can't wait around until this is handled by the courts. That's not fair. How did the judge handle these requests?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. In that he says these press passes, they need to be restored immediately, because there wasn't due process here.

There wasn't the ability of the White House to talk to the news organizations, to tell them explicitly what would have resulted in them having their press passes revoked, or to go through any sort of process that is guaranteed by the Constitution in this aspect.

The other thing that the judge is saying here, and it's evident by a hearing that starts at 3:30 in the afternoon yesterday and a ruling that came in at 1:30 in the morning last night. This judge says there will be harm. There's irreparable harm --

CORNISH: Yes.

POLANTZ: -- potentially here if these press passes aren't restored immediately. He also just batted away, one by one, every single point, basically, point by point.

CORNISH: But just to clarify to people, this is not when you do something that upsets your boss and they yank your security badge, and you go to go into work. It's a different relationship. Employer, employee versus White House press corps covering the government. No?

SARA FISCHER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA ANALYST: Yes. And there's also a lot of legal precedent that supports what you're describing, that this type of relationship needs special care.

For example, Judge Timothy Kelly, who is a Trump appointee, he is the judge that oversaw this case and that issued that ruling. He ruled in 2018 that a then-CNN correspondent, Jim Acosta, had his badge, you know, illegally revoked, because he didn't have due process.

And so, the other difference here, Audie, between the employer- employee relationship that you just described is that there's actually legal precedent to support the judges' move this time around.

And that made it very clear to a lot of reporters looking at this, that it was likely that this was to move in this direction.

My question becomes, after the 14-day restraining order, or do we get more insight? And it's a question for Katelyn and more judge rulings on the First Amendment, which was the other thing that CNN and MS NOW and Politico cited --

CORNISH: Yes.

FISCHER: -- when they sued the administration.

POLANTZ: That's going to be a really important thing to watch for, because this really doesn't address the First Amendment, like Sara is saying here.

What's happening now is that these press passes, they are to be immediately restored. Our journalists will be going to the White House, as will -- we very much assume MS NOW and Politico to get in there and to begin working again on those grounds. Over that 14 days, though, we're waiting to see a schedule from Judge

Kelly -- maybe it will come even today -- where he sets up a plan of gathering more evidence and hearing more arguments, potentially on the Fourth -- on the First Amendment, the free speech claims.

But also, something he started to address here but gave some wiggle room in case there's going to be more evidence to develop around it. These arguments the Justice Department was making about national security threats.

[06:04:07]

CORNISH: Right. So, originally, when the president announced this was happening, he very much talked about the coverage itself.

Fast forward to the lawsuit when the Justice Department actually shows up in court. They say something different, right? They say this is actually a national security issue. And don't they even present Defense Department evidence? And, you know, supplemental information to make that case?

POLANTZ: They do. And when Judge Kelly writes about that, he says, wait a minute. That statement was coming from the Defense Department. That's not even the White House.

CORNISH: Yes.

POLANTZ: It's a totally different part of the government.

CORNISH: Meaning the reporting you're complaining about aren't even people with White House press.

POLANTZ: That's right. And he also says that nothing extraordinary happened to prompt a national security concern at this time.

People who were credentialed at the White House that they're complaining about now -- Betsy Klein from CNN is one of them -- she had her press badge re-upped after the story that they say was so offensive on national security grounds to cause --

CORNISH: So, they submit evidence saying, look, here's an example of a story that's a problem. And the judge says, Well, then why didn't you revoke it then?

POLANTZ: That's right. He also does ding them for what President Trump said on Friday. He said it's not what Trump said. National -- national security was not what President Trump said when he announced he was banning plaintiffs from the White House.

Instead, he focused on -- and this is quoting from this order. Instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs.

CORNISH: So, his own words coming back against him.

Sara, I want to add one thing, which is what makes this case different. It's always awkward to cover ourselves, right, in the media is that there was a collective response, meaning in the past a journalist might have been gone after, and their bosses had to pay the legal costs.

This time around, you had across the spectrum news organizations saying, if you think you can do this to one, you have a problem with all. And what do you -- what surprises you about this moment?

FISCHER: When we first started out in the first Trump administration, news organizations were sort of reticent to push back against the administration.

There was concern about access. There was concern about creating a contentious relationship.

Fast-forward this decade, and that is completely reversed. News organizations seem much more prepared to take action against the administration, to defend themselves and defend their access.

I think about the A.P. suing the White House last year.

CORNISH: Yes.

FISCHER: I think about "The New York Times," suing the Defense Department.

CORNISH: There's an Iowa newspaper that's going back and forth.

FISCHER: Yes, yes. I mean, that's a great point, Audie. The Trump administration and the president as a private citizen, have a losing record when it comes to litigating against the press, not just on areas of First Amendment and access, but also on areas of defamation, when the president has alleged that the media outlets have said things that are not true. He has lost on a lot of those cases.

A case was tossed last night by a judge in Des Moines who said that his lawsuit against "The Des Moines Register" is not going to be able to move forward.

And I think that the collective action of the press corps right now is really symbolic of the fact that the media knows that they have the legal leverage on their side, and they also have the sort of attention leverage on their side.

CORNISH: Yes.

FISCHER: Remember when the outlets sued to block or sue to, you know, get this ban reversed. A bunch of outlets from the White House press corps said, you know what? We're not going to distribute video.

CORNISH: Right.

FISCHER: We're not going to distribute --

CORNISH: Right away. We saw the president --

FISCHER: We're going to back you.

CORNISH: -- with no microphone in front of a helipad.

FISCHER: Correct. So, the important thing for the American people to know, especially as the president is meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping today, is that you will likely be getting that video and those photographs, because this should be ending the collective boycott of the White House press corps.

That is so important, Audie, because at the end of the day, yes, this is an important legal case, but this is an important moment for the American people. You're going to get the access you deserve.

CORNISH: All right. That's Sara Fischer and Katelyn Polantz. I know I'm going to be hearing from you guys more today.

Coming up on CNN THIS MORNING, we're going to have more on that news. Why some experts are saying the president won't stop there in his battle with journalists.

Plus, Trump tried to use national security as a reason for his ban, as we were just talking about. We're going to talk about the reason why the judge was skeptical about that claim.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:13:50]

CORNISH: Following this breaking news overnight as a federal judge immediately reinstates CNN's access to the White House after President Trump's abrupt ban.

The judge finding that CNN, MS NOW and Politico have shown a, quote, "likelihood of success" of eventually winning the lawsuit. And he doubted the government's national security arguments.

Now, the ruling means that the press pool could choose to resume live and taped coverage of presidential events as soon as today. We do not have word on that at this early hour.

Joining me now in the group chat, Isaac Dovere, CNN senior reporter; Mike Dubke, former White House communications director; and Sawyer Hackett, Democratic strategist.

Isaac, I'll come back to you, but I feel like I should go to you, Mike, because you were literally a communications director for the White House at one point.

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yes.

CORNISH: So, on a morning, like this --

DUBKE: And every, every outlet that was there.

CORNISH: So, do -- does someone who has that job today wake up frustrated? Have they been up all night with the ruling? Tell me what the thinking is in a kind of Trump White House comms office.

DUBKE: I think at the end of the day, the -- the press operation and the communications operation is happy that the microphones will now work again. The cameras will be on. They can get back to that, to the -- to the regular everyday reporting and battle with -- with the -- with the press.

[06:15:12]

CORNISH: So, you have high hopes that they're going to comply. People who go to scan their badge today are going to get in.

DUBKE: Yes.

CORNISH: What about you? What are you thinking?

EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: I -- I think that the -- it was very likely, from the moment that the president posted this on Friday, that the court was going to do what it did.

CORNISH: He posted this. Can I show the Truth Social post?

DOVERE: Sure. The original. Yes.

CORNISH: Yes, you're talking about the one, September 18th --

DOVERE: Yes.

CORNISH: -- where he says that he's proud, effective immediately. And if we bury down into all of the kind of slurs, at one point, he says it's the result of their constant reporting fake news; "Media Outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES."

So, this was his stated reason, publicly.

DOVERE: Right. And -- but based on -- on that stated reason, on how cases like this have gone in the past, like you were talking about the Jim Acosta thing and others, and what then the arguments that were being made in court?

I only got as far as taking the LSATS. It did seem very likely that this was going to result in this decision from the court. The question, I think, always was, what happens now?

CORNISH: YES.

Dovere: What does the White House comply with this? How quickly do they comply with it?

CORNISH: Can I play for you something Karoline Leavitt said on FOX News on Tuesday, which was her reaction to how the boycott played out, when other news organizations, including the one she was on, did not participate in the pool as a result of the president's decision. Here's what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAROLINE LEAVITT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I've gotten on the phone with the leadership of all those stations and said, why are you not taking the president's remarks live? Like, just let your audience decide how they feel about this.

For the president of the United States to address the nation and for networks to take make the editorial decision themselves that they will not cover it for their audience. That's scary stuff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: That's the scary stuff. Is -- is them not taking the president live every single time he opens his mouth and not Trump deciding to ban certain outlets from covering him, especially as he's, you know, meeting with foreign leaders around the country.

You know, I think it's -- this was always going to be a distraction. I think Isaac is right that this was -- they knew that this was going to be struck down, that this was headed to the courts.

I think Donald Trump absolutely wanted to have the coverage, did not want to be denied access to being on TV. This was clearly, I think, put -- you know, put out there.

"The Wall Street Journal" claims that, you know, generated from Natalie Harp, that this was an idea to distract the public at a time when gas prices are through the roof, and the president is dealing with crisis after crisis. But it looks like it's going to be resolved after all.

CORNISH: I think one of the things that's interesting is how the rest of the party had to deal with this, because obviously, we're in the middle of the midterms. So, in the middle of their own kind of relationship push-

pull with the press themselves. This is Ron Brownstein. He's a senior political analyst here at CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Virtually no congressional Republicans came out to oppose him. There really is no cost to him from these repeated probes.

And this is far from the last time we will see him try something like this, whether it's with the media, or state voting rules, or intimidating voting groups, and so forth.

As long as there is no consequence, I think he continues to press forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Do you think that's true? No consequence. So might as well. DUBKE: I think there was a high level of frustration on the part of

the president. And I think Karoline Leavitt is right that there is a time and a place if the media wants the access, and access is then given to the president. The president is making a national address. It should be covered.

And she was referring back to some of the previous addresses. So, there's frustration on the part of the White House.

CORNISH: That's not required by law.

DUBKE: Absolutely.

CORNISH: Aspects of this relationship, it seems, are due to the institution --

DUBKE: It seems what also isn't required by law --

CORNISH: No, no. Exactly.

DUBKE: Each -- you know, who is part of that press.

CORNISH: Correct.

DUBKE: I do know for a long period of time, years ago, before the Trump administration, there were smaller outlets that were -- were denied access to the White House and to the -- to the press -- to be part of the press corps.

That has changed in this administration.

CORNISH: Yes.

DUBKE: And new outlets are -- are part of that.

So, we have a dynamic media now that is part of cable news and part of everything else.

CORNISH: Yes. And yet, his focus remained on --

DUBKE: It does.

CORNISH: -- legacy outlets.

HACKETT: You're talking about YouTubers.

CORNISH: We're going to come back to this --

DUBKE: I'm not just talking about YouTubers. I'm talking about other publications.

CORNISH: Other small publications.

But we learned pretty quickly, with the boycott, they weren't in a position to give him the coverage he believes he is owed as basic as a microphone. DUBKE: Not when it comes to the pool, which you have to buy yourself

into. Yes.

CORNISH: Yes.

DUBKE: Let's not forget that.

CORNISH: Absolutely. Again, voluntarily. I think --

DUBKE: Voluntarily by yourself.

CORNISH: We're going to find out today, because unlike other kinds of fights with the White House, this one has a lot of case law around it.

[06:20:01]

So, we're going to keep you guys up to date.

In the meantime, there is going to be, you know, a lot of pomp and circumstance today for the Chinese leader visiting today, Xi Jinping.

Some Republicans say they think Trump is going too easy on Beijing. So, will the president try to please China or his party?

Plus, an OpenAI agent hacking this time into an Australian government health database.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CORNISH: So, President Donald Trump greeting China's Xi Jinping with an arrival ceremony. It had full honors. It had a military flyover.

We would normally show you images of it, but of course, the White House press pool suspended video coverage of the president due to his press ban, which was still in effect when Xi arrived yesterday.

[06:25:06]

Now, all of this is the latest show of pageantry this year between the two following their summit in Beijing a few months ago.

Trump is going to host Xi for a full day of meetings before a state dinner. That happens later tonight. And yet, some Republicans are not thrilled about all of this pageantry for the Chinese leader.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MI): Quite frankly, had the White House asked me for advice, I would have suggested the president not invite Xi Jinping to Washington for -- for such a lavish welcome.

Our commander in chief should keep in mind that his guest is a brutal, unelected, and oppressive dictator.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CORNISH: OK. Group chat is back. I wanted to play that, because that's not just any senator. It's Senator Roger Wicker. He is chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

So, they are very invested in what's going on with the war. There's been a lot of dialog about China and its relationship with Iran.

What do you think of him taking this beat and saying all of this out loud so directly.?

DOVERE: You see, Republicans and Democrats alike very worried about China as not an enemy, but as a true rival. And emerging on equal footing, almost, in the world at this point.

And -- and the question of where that will go over time when it comes to military buildup, when it comes to space exploration, when it comes, maybe especially right now to A.I. and what is being done in the race and regulations that are being thought about.

It is a real question of where the United States will be, vis-a-vis China in the years ahead. And what we are seeing from the president is not clear on where -- which direction he wants things to go.

CORNISH: Yes. And just for some context, this was Trump in a prime- time speech, accusing China of the 2020 election meddling.

So, this is an old speech, but we want to show you sort of how far we've come.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The People's Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China's illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files.

But here is Wicker again, bringing up the Iran issue, again from the Senate floor yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WICKER: As guests converse, converse over the meal, the president might inquire about the purposes of China's massive military buildup, or about China's clear support for Iran.

This summer, it was all over the press that China gave Iran satellite imagery intelligence, and that intelligence led to the death of American troops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Again, super specific in what he's saying. His concerns.

DUBKE: And both things can be true at the same time: that you have an adversary who you are in active conflict with. But at the same time, given all the other interdependencies that the United States has with China and with other countries in the world, to have a summit to continue the dialog and speak.

The one thing that I need to stress here is that President Trump is harder on China than President Biden was. The tariffs are --

CORNISH: President Trump is harder on Canada than he is on China.

DUBKE: We're talking about -- I know they both begin with the letter "C," but we're talking about China here.

CORNISH: How we treat our allies versus how we treat a fellow superpower who we're dealing with and who has issued red lines.

Here's China: "Sovereignty, security, development interests must not be violated. The four red lines concerning the Taiwan issue, democracy, human rights, China's political system, and its right to development must not be challenged."

I think the critique is going to be under this administration, they wouldn't be anyway.

HACKETT: I mean, normally, a U.S. China summit is like just a tremendous opportunity to address some of the world's most pressing issues, to actually move forward in addressing concerns that are -- that people are dealing with every single day.

But this summit appears to be, essentially, handling Donald Trump's message that he's created: cleaning up the Iran mess, cleaning up the oil supply mess.

CORNISH: A.I. is going to come up. There will be other things.

HACKETT: Sure. A.I. will come up in the context of Donald Trump having, you know, propped up the entire stock market and his entire stock portfolio using A.I., deciding not to, you know, decelerate on A.I., deciding not to regulate A.I. at a time when we should be coming together to -- to come up with some commonsense compromises with China on A.I., on regulating A.I.

The president is not doing that. He's -- he's pursuing, you know, deals to -- to help China crack down on Iran. He's pursuing deals to, you know, fix the detente that we have with Iran over trade policy.

We're -- we're cleaning up his messes instead of dealing with these actual pressing issues that Americans want to see action on.

CORNISH: What -- what do we need to see past the pageantry today, Mike?

DUBKE: I think we need to see some conversation about where both of these countries can move together on A.I. as a -- as a -- as a large part of this conversation. I

[06:30:00]