OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Trump Complains CNN MSNBC Skipped Xi Visit

14 sources · updated 2026-09-26
Left 0% Center 100% Right 0%
0 left · 2 center · 0 right

What happened

On Sept. 18, 2026, President Donald Trump announced a ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House; the outlets reported that their hard-pass credentials were confiscated the next day. The three organizations sued. Late on Sept. 23, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued a 14-day temporary restraining order requiring the White House to immediately restore those credentials, finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a Fifth Amendment due-process claim. On the morning of Sept. 24, some reporters were still denied entry; after the outlets notified the court of noncompliance, a White House operations official said badges were available by about 9:55 a.m., and reporters from all three outlets were later admitted. CNN and MS NOW later said some journalists were turned away from a Thursday-night White House state dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping despite the order.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 6 articles

1 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 1 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Judge Timothy Kelly
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court ruling
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 25, 00:32 UTC by NBC News, naming its source. First document in the first report, from NBC News (court ruling).
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK. Only left-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days; Fox News reported it on 2026-09-24.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning outlets had not covered this as of publication, so a reader on that side would not know a judge required banned outlets' credentials restored or that they were still blocked that morning. Left-leaning coverage reports that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were let back onto the grounds after a temporary restraining order, following an earlier denial the same day. ABC News adds that the outlets' lawyer asked for an emergency hearing over that morning's refusal. Among the outlets that did cover it, ABC News leads with the judge's skepticism that national security motivated the ban and with his description of the cited stories as "routine," while NBC News leads with the outlets being allowed back in. The point that the White House skipped the process set by earlier court cases appears only in the ABC account. Does the order guarantee access to every White House event, or only a pass through the gate?
Bottom line

A right-leaning reader would not know a judge ordered CNN, MS NOW and Politico back into the White House. ABC News is among the outlets that reported they were turned away that morning anyway.

The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A White House declaration said access had been restored as of 9:55 a.m. official statementin ABC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The temporary restraining order mandated that access be restored for 14 days. numberin Axios · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The judge found a likelihood of success on the Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim and did not address the outlets' First Amendment claims. legal rulingin Axios · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Outlets covering the story report that Judge Kelly, a 2017 Trump appointee, granted a TRO because the White House did not follow notice-and-hearing procedures required by prior D.C. Circuit cases, and that he was skeptical of a later national-security rationale because Trump initially cited “fake news,” untruthfulness, and negative coverage. They describe a Thursday standoff in which reporters were turned away despite the order, an emergency noncompliance filing, then restoration of badges and entry later that morning. Coverage frames the dispute as a press-access and due-process fight, notes a solidarity boycott of White House pool video by other networks, an amicus brief from more than 50 news organizations including Fox News, and unresolved questions about dinner access and whether TV pool cameras would cover Trump’s meeting with Xi.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it rests on named parties, a written TRO, court filings, a named judge, and contemporaneous accounts of who was admitted or turned away. Established facts are the credential revocation, the lawsuit, Kelly’s order restoring hard passes for 14 days on due-process grounds, a morning delay in compliance, and subsequent readmission of at least some reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. Still alleged or unresolved are a First Amendment violation (the TRO did not decide that claim), whether national security was the actual motive, and the extent of any remaining denials, including at the state dinner. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction filing due Sept. 28, the government’s response due Oct. 2, whether access is fully and consistently restored, and any appeal after the TRO period.

14 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.