CNN, MS NOW and Politico have expanded their lawsuit against Donald Trump’s White House, alleging that exclusions from presidential press pools have continued despite a federal court order restoring their access.

The amended complaint, filed on Wednesday afternoon, seeks a declaration that the restrictions are unlawful and a permanent injunction. It alleges violations of the First and Fifth Amendments, arguing that reinstating press credentials has not ended retaliation over the outlets’ coverage.

Two weeks earlier, US District Judge Timothy P. Kelly granted a preliminary injunction, finding that Trump’s ban likely breached the First Amendment by discriminating against journalists because of their reporting. Kelly had previously issued a temporary restraining order on Fifth Amendment grounds. The administration is appealing his ruling; credentials were restored late last month.

The dispute now centres on the press pool, a decades-old arrangement under which news organisations take turns covering the president in confined spaces, including Air Force One and the Oval Office.

CNN says it has been excluded from all six Air Force One trips for which it was the designated television pool outlet since Trump announced the ban on 18 September. It has performed that role for more than four decades within a five-network rotation; the other networks have supported it during the dispute. Politico has been excluded from two scheduled out-of-town assignments. MS NOW says it has not joined the secondary television pool, whose place the White House allocates, since 18 September.

The outlets acknowledge that they have no unrestricted right to enter those spaces. Their argument is that, once journalists are admitted, the White House cannot exclude particular organisations because it dislikes their coverage.

A White House official responded: “the Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office.”

The administration appears to rely on litigation involving The Associated Press, restricted last year after it did not immediately adopt Trump’s preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico. In June 2025, an appeals panel partially lifted a stay obtained by AP, reasoning that restricted presidential spaces were not First Amendment forums for private speech and discussion. The outlets’ lawyer, Ted Boutrous, stresses that the ruling was non-binding and non-precedential.

Boutrous sought assurances last week that exclusions would end; the administration did not respond. He argues that they punish coverage and impede reporting on major events.

The complaint says 97% of nearly 5,000 questions Trump has taken from reporters in the traditional press areas were asked in the Oval Office or in connection with Air Force One travel. That underpins the outlets’ contention that credentials alone do not restore meaningful access. Whether the continuing restrictions are unlawful remains for the court to determine.