司法 · 白宫新闻采访权限持续报道 · 第 5 篇，共 5 篇

白宫通行证获保护，但新闻采访权限之争尚未结束

CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 对其白宫采访证件享有更有力的保护。这项初步禁令涵盖因报道内容而受报复的问题，但活动采访、采访团和随行采访权限仍未解决。

播出 文字 阅读需 11 分钟103 个来源HeyDay News Desk · About usWatch report
与 HeyDex 一起探索

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

持续报道第 26 天

5 篇报道131 家媒体242 个来源23 个视频

完整报道
11 天无进展
  1. 第 1 次更新三家新闻机构被告知不得进入：白宫为新闻媒体划出界线
  2. 第 2 次更新被拒之门外、联手行动、走上法庭：白宫新闻禁令迎来首位法官
  3. 第 3 次更新记者通行证恢复了，CNN 的空军一号席位却没有
  4. 第 4 次更新司法部调查拒绝顶替 CNN 的新闻网络
  5. 第 5 次更新白宫通行证获保护，但新闻采访权限之争尚未结束当前位置

自上次报道以来的变化

3 天后

当时

司法部调查拒绝顶替 CNN 的新闻网络

我们当时说尚无定论的问题

  1. 没有可核实的执法负责人，没有说明用于整顿的标准，也没有确认下一批受影响的媒体。

    尚无定论

    目前无法核实有人负责更广泛的排除措施执行工作，也无法核实存在客观的报道标准，或已确认将排除范围扩大至其他媒体。

  2. 没有可核实的依据支持作为理由提出的 96 percent 和 93 percent 报道数据。

    尚无定论

    关于 96 percent 和 93 percent 这两个数字所依据的研究、样本、时间段以及负面报道的定义，均无法核实。

  3. 具体撤销了哪些采访权限、持续了多久——从通行证到办公室，再到采访团轮值。

    尚无定论

    通行证已被撤销，而这项禁令如今在诉讼期间保护持证者在媒体可进入区域工作的权利。有关办公室、活动、采访团轮值和随行采访的完整条款仍未解决。 362

  4. 报道并未证明存在同等的实时随行报道渠道、书面平等采访权限保证，也未显示更广泛的争议已有最终裁决。

    尚无定论

    目前无法确认存在同等的实时随行报道渠道或书面平等采访权限保证。这项裁决属于初步裁决，并未最终解决更广泛的争议。 24

  5. 证件是被正式撤销，还是采访权限被悄然限制。

    已有答案

  6. 凯利是否仅以正当程序为由恢复采访权限，还是也裁定观点歧视主张。

    已有答案

  7. 电视和摄影记者是否继续团结行动；如果是，采访团任务如何分配。

    尚无定论

    此前电视采访团的团结行动有据可查。目前没有可核实的报道能确认电视和摄影记者在各项采访安排中是否继续团结行动，也无法确认每项采访任务究竟由谁承担。 11102

  8. 记者能否获得使用恢复后的采访权限所需的活动采访和随行采访任务。

    尚无定论

    这项禁令没有解决活动采访和随行采访团任务安排问题，也没有核实任何具体的禁令发布后任务分配或获准进入的情况。 42

现在

CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 对其白宫采访证件享有更有力的保护。这项初步禁令涵盖因报道内容而受报复的问题，但活动采访、采访团和随行采访权限仍未解决。

此后已有答案

  1. 证件是被正式撤销，还是采访权限被悄然限制。

    政府正式撤销了通行证；这并非只是非正式地限制人员入场。 312

  2. 凯利是否仅以正当程序为由恢复采访权限，还是也裁定观点歧视主张。

    凯利审理了报复和观点歧视主张，并认定原告很可能在这两项主张以及正当程序主张上胜诉。这些仍是初步认定。 62

新的进展

  • 凯利发布初步禁令，在诉讼期间保护采访权限，并审理第一修正案主张。

CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 的记者、制片人及其他持证工作人员，在其雇主对唐纳德·特朗普总统将他们排除在外的决定提出法律挑战期间，仍可在媒体可进入的白宫区域工作。他们的通行证如今获得了更有力的法院保护。但这些证件仍不保证他们能够进入椭圆形办公室、搭乘空军一号，或轮流进入总统新闻采访团。3 6

美国地区法官蒂莫西·J·凯利于 2026 年 10 月 13 日发布初步禁令，以一项在诉讼进行期间禁止执行受质疑证件禁令的命令，取代了短期保护；除非法院另有命令。凯利认定，这些媒体机构很可能在第一修正案报复和观点歧视主张，以及正当程序权利遭剥夺的主张上胜诉。这是一项重要进展，而非最终判决。2 6

我们于 10 月 12 日报道，司法部正在调查五家电视网，原因是它们拒绝在被排除的采访团轮值时段派人替代 CNN。当时，三家媒体的证件已暂时恢复，凯利也将保护期限延长至 10 月 13 日，同时考虑是否给予更长期的救济。这个悬而未决的问题如今已有答案：保护措施已成为一项初步禁令。15 71 2

这场争议始于特朗普 9 月 18 日的声明。他称自己“很自豪地宣布，即刻起”，将 CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico “逐出白宫”。凯利 10 月裁决的开篇记载，持有通行证的记者次日到场，却被拒绝进入。NPR 报道，受影响的记者超过 70 人；目前无法独立确认禁令受益者的确切人数。87 8

从临时恢复到更有力的保护

  1. 2026 年 9 月 24 日

    凯利发布首份临时限制令，恢复通行证持有者的采访权限。

    849
  2. 2026 年 10 月 8 日

    法官将采访权限保护延长至 10 月 13 日，同时考虑更长期的救济。

    71
  3. 2026 年 10 月 13 日

    凯利发布初步禁令，在诉讼期间保护采访权限，并审理第一修正案主张。

    8726

我们于 9 月 27 日报道了最初恢复采访权限一事，并说明这并未解决随行采访团任务的分配问题。因此，10 月 13 日并非首次下令恢复采访权限；次日上午的报道也并非宣布审判已经结束。新裁决强化了既有禁令。将其称为无限期，意味着保护不再受短期延长期限限制，并不意味着它是永久性的或不受上诉影响。33 8 2

不受欢迎的报道并非安全风险认定

核心问题是，官员能否利用现有证件制度惩罚他们不喜欢的新闻报道。报复涉及因受保护的报道而受到惩罚；观点歧视则涉及因为报道表达了某种立场而选择将记者排除在外。凯利认定原告很可能在这两项主张上胜诉。6 88

根据 NPR 对裁决意见的报道，特朗普的公开声明和社交媒体帖子表明，他试图向这些媒体施压，迫使它们提供更有利于他的报道。The Hill 也报道，凯利认定，原告很可能是因为特朗普认为其报道不准确且有偏见而被选中排除在外。总统本人对排除媒体的解释因此成了不利于其合宪性的证据。8 3

程序上的失当与报道内容本身是两回事。记者没有得到适当通知和明确标准，在证件被撤销前没有得到公平警告，也没有实质性机会反驳指控并提出申诉。此前的保护依据是原告很可能在正当程序问题上胜诉，并未裁定第一修正案主张的实体问题；这项新裁决则同时涉及言论和程序。6 8 10

这一区别很重要。证件制度不能沦为忠诚度测试，让媒体能否进入取决于被报道者是否满意。凯利的初步认定承认了这种危险，但没有假装诉讼已经尘埃落定。

实际采访权限的落差也尚未解决。NBC 明确报道，凯利没有裁定进入椭圆形办公室或搭乘空军一号的问题；The Hill 则称，轮值采访团的席位仍未解决。此前被排除在活动采访和随行采访之外的情况说明了这一落差，但不能证明 10 月 13 日之后发生了新的违规行为。此处无法核实任何具名记者在禁令发布后获准进入，或获派随行采访任务的具体情况。4 2 29

对共享采访安排的另一重压力

相关司法部调查涉及的是另一组媒体：ABC、CBS、CNN、NBC 和 Fox News。这五家电视网轮流承担总统活动的联合电视采访任务。CNN 被安排值班却遭拒绝进入后，其他媒体同意不派人替班，并逐日作出决定。9 月份，共享采访团的报道中断了数日；这并不意味着各方已达成停止报道特朗普一切消息的协议。15 16 102

10 月 9 日，媒体收到要求提供采访团相关通信记录的民事调查要求；正式调查于 10 月 10 日宣布。CNN 后来称律师在那个星期五收到调查要求，描述的是此前已报道的同一举措，并非已核实的新一轮行动。17 18 11

司法部公布的调查依据是：“商业竞争者之间的‘联合抵制’可能违反《谢尔曼法》。”这解释了司法部为何称正在调查，但并不能证明这些电视网实施了违法的贸易限制。有关采访权限的禁令既没有解决这项调查，也没有驳回反垄断案件。16 42

法律专家质疑这一理论。杰西卡·罗斯和南希·格特纳告诉 CNN，这项调查看起来缺乏依据，并认为相关行为受到第一修正案保护。前美国检察官乔伊斯·万斯认为，这种应对并非以商业影响为目的的限制贸易集体行动。这些是法律评估，并非裁决。11 9

截至 10 月 14 日的报道截点，调查尚无结论，也没有已确认的指控或执法行动。调查要求的全文、材料提交期限、已取得材料以及电视网的实质性回应，均无法核实。9 月采访团中断的确切起止时间及受影响的采访安排也无法核实。这些信息缺口限制了可报道的内容，但不能证明司法部手中没有证据。17 18 102

预计政府将提起上诉，哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院被认为是下一站，但目前无法核实已提交上诉通知、上诉案号或上诉裁决。下一次听证会的日期也尚未确定。目前，三家媒体因报道内容不受欢迎而丧失工作证件的风险，已受到更有力的保护。它们能否重新进入可观察总统公务活动的范围更小的采访区域，仍未解决。3 6

消息来源及参考资料

最新报道：NPR 1 8 12；The Hill 2 3 100；NBC News 4 14；Bloomberg Television 5；MS NOW 6 9 10；ABC News 7；CNN 11；Global News 13；CNBC 88；CBS News 89；Associated Press 90；Deadline 91；Straight Arrow News 92；News From The States 93；The Guardian 94。

调查报道及评论：NPR 15；BBC 16；NBC 17；The Washington Post 18 39 43；The Wall Street Journal 19；USA Today 20；ABC Australia 21；CNBC 22 102；The Philadelphia Inquirer 23；Newsweek 24；World Online 25；Montana Public Radio 36；Georgia Public Broadcasting 37；The Guardian 38；RNZ 40；Al Arabiya 41；Associated Press 42；Variety 44；TheWrap 45；The Hollywood Reporter 46；Signal Stack 47；DNYUZ 48；Outside the Beltway 79；Ceevis 80；Common Dreams 81；KVIA 82；Mediagazer 83；Joyce Vance 84；MEAWW 85；Hoosier Enquirer 86；Law Commentary 103。

法院文件、镜像及法律参考资料：9 月命令 26 49 50 51 56；动议及法律意见书 52 53 55 57 97；案件参考资料 58；10 月意见书 87 96；Reason/Volokh 95 101。

此前关于采访权限的报道：Recording Law 27；CNN 28；转载的恢复采访权限报道 29；ABC 30；KRDO 31；Nonstop News 32 35；MS NOW 33 76；Studio One Networks 34；Pressure of Truth 54；Associated Press 69；News Channel 3-12 70；The Hill 71；Courthouse News 72；Bloomberg Law 73；Politico 74；TheWrap 75；The Washington Times 77；Bloomberg Government 78；The American Quorum 98；The War on News 99。

背景身份信息参考资料：康奈尔法学院 59；Cornell Chronicle 60 63；Wikipedia 61；ACLU 62；佩斯大学 64；美国国会图书馆 65；联邦党人协会 66；Google Scholar 67；SSRN 68。

播出原貌 22 行
  1. On October 12, we reported restored press passes. Now a judge has strengthened that protection. CNN, MS NOW and Politico can keep working on press-accessible White House grounds while their lawsuit proceeds. The administration cannot revive the challenged credential ban while that protection holds.
  2. The unresolved fight is how far those credentials actually get journalists.
  3. Judge Timothy Kelly issued the preliminary injunction on October 13. It protects the journalists’ hard passes, the credentials that let them work on White House grounds. Access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and rotating press-pool assignments remains unsettled.
  4. The protection reaches the people doing the work, including reporters, producers and other credentialed staff. Their employers challenged both the reason for excluding them and the way officials revoked their passes. Kelly has now found they’re likely to win on both constitutional fronts.
  5. Trump announced the ban on September 18, saying he was “proud to announce” it took effect immediately. Journalists from the three organizations appeared the next day with their hard passes and were denied entry. Their credentials had been formally deactivated.
  6. More than 70 journalists were reportedly affected across the three organizations. That gives the scale of the exclusion, rather than an exact count of everyone protected by the new injunction. The outlets sued to regain the access they’d held before Trump’s announcement.
  7. Kelly first restored credential access on September 24 with a temporary restraining order described as lasting 14 days. On October 8, he extended protection through October 13. That day, he issued the preliminary injunction that now protects access during the lawsuit.
  8. The earlier order rested on the outlets’ likely success on due process, without deciding their First Amendment claims. The new decision reaches retaliation and viewpoint discrimination as well. Kelly’s assessment remains preliminary. The lawsuit still has to resolve the claims, and further court orders can change the protection.
  9. Kelly found that Trump’s public statements and social-media posts pointed toward pressure for more favorable reporting. The organizations had been selected because Trump regarded their coverage as inaccurate and biased. That motive supports the outlets’ claims that officials punished protected journalism.
  10. Retaliation means punishing journalists for protected reporting. Viewpoint discrimination means excluding them because of the perspectives their coverage expresses. Kelly found likely success on both claims, alongside due process. Those findings give the outlets a stronger basis for keeping their credentials while the case proceeds.
  11. The administration invoked national security to defend the restrictions. Kelly rejected that justification as insufficient to justify this ban at this stage. The due-process problem was separate. Journalists lacked appropriate notice and clear standards, fair warning before losing their passes, and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the accusations and appeal.
  12. Trump also cited negative-coverage figures of 96 percent and 93 percent in connection with the ban. It’s still unclear how those figures were calculated. His dissatisfaction with coverage is central to the dispute over whether officials used the credential system to pressure the outlets.
  13. Restored credentials didn’t settle event access in September. CNN and MS NOW journalists were refused entry to a September 24 evening event at the North Portico. CNN also remained excluded from an Air Force One assignment. Those incidents preceded the new injunction.
  14. The October ruling leaves those narrower reporting opportunities unresolved. A hard pass allows work on press-accessible grounds, while a pool assignment determines who enters a smaller setting or travels with the president. The court hasn’t settled those assignments, so the credential victory only partly closes the access gap.
  15. Five television networks face a separate Justice Department investigation: ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox News. They rotate shared presidential television coverage. That inquiry concerns their response to CNN’s exclusion from pool shifts, and the access injunction doesn’t resolve it.
  16. When CNN was scheduled to cover a pool shift but couldn’t enter, the other networks agreed not to replace it. They made those decisions day by day. Shared television-pool coverage stopped temporarily for several days in September and later resumed. The interruption concerned that shared coverage, while the networks’ broader reporting continued.
  17. The Justice Department sent civil investigative demands for pool-related communications on October 9 and announced its formal investigation on October 10. Those are the same investigative steps described in the earlier update. The department is examining whether cooperation among competing commercial networks violated federal competition law.
  18. The Justice Department says group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act, a federal competition law. It says its Antitrust Division is investigating whether the networks broke those laws. The inquiry continues without an announced finding of wrongdoing.
  19. That theory has drawn criticism from legal experts. The dispute is whether the networks’ refusal to substitute for CNN amounted to conduct restraining trade, or a protected response to the exclusion of fellow journalists. A court hasn’t resolved that question in this investigation.
  20. Jessica Roth and Nancy Gertner assessed the inquiry as apparently meritless and argued that the networks’ conduct was protected by the First Amendment. Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance argued that their response didn’t restrain trade for commercial impact. Those are legal assessments.
  21. The department hasn’t announced charges or an enforcement action. The evidence supporting its theory and the networks’ substantive responses to the demands remain unclear. Kelly’s injunction protects White House credentials while that separate investigation continues.
  22. The administration is expected to appeal to the D.C. Circuit, but it isn’t clear yet whether it has filed. For now, CNN, MS NOW and Politico have stronger court protection against the credential ban. Their access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and rotating press-pool assignments remains unsettled.

来源

103 个来源70 家媒体10 个视频4 篇通稿

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联；下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

探索完整的新闻编辑室图谱 ↗

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。