DOMINANT ANGLE
Dhaka sees the decision by federal judge Timothy Kelly as confirmation that an administration cannot withdraw access from accredited journalists without due process, regardless of the reason cited.
Dominant angle identified — does not reflect unanimity of this country’s media
KEY POINTS
- 01
Federal Judge Timothy Kelly ruled that the exclusion of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House was likely unconstitutional.
- 02
Donald Trump had announced on September 18 the exclusion of the three media outlets, accusing them of publishing 'FICTION and LIES' about his administration.
- 03
The Department of Justice cited national security and claimed that access to the White House was a privilege rather than a constitutional right, an argument dismissed by the judge due to a lack of evidence submitted in the case.
ANALYSIS
Dacca, 24 September 2026. The federal judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House overnight on Wednesday to immediately restore, reinstate and re-establish access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico, report the Daily Star and TBS News. The Bangladeshi press first notes the legal solidity of the decision: the district judge, appointed by Donald Trump himself in 2017, estimated that the exclusion of the three editorial offices was probably unconstitutional, violating the right to due process guaranteed by the fifth amendment.
According to TBS News, the Trump administration had justified its decision to the court by invoking national security motives, claiming that access to the White House was a privilege and not a constitutional right, and accusing the three media outlets of having violated professional standards and published sensitive or classified information. The judge dismissed this argument, due to a lack of concrete evidence submitted to the file.
The origin of the dispute dates back to 18 September, when Donald Trump announced on social media that CNN, MS NOW and Politico should no longer be able to constantly write or report FICTIONS and LIES about his presidency. Their journalists then saw their accreditations deactivated and entry to the White House was denied to them. The three editorial offices rejected this justification, seeing it as retaliation related to their coverage rather than an actual breach of press room rules.
The Daily Star describes the decision as a major setback for Trump in one of his biggest battles with the media, recalling that the press organizations had taken the matter to court to challenge the ban rather than waiting for a political resolution.
For Dacca, this case goes beyond the American situation: it reminds us that an executive power, even a powerful one, remains subject to the control of an independent judge when it withdraws accredited journalists' access without a verifiable reason before a court. The decision, a temporary order, does not exhaust the dispute but already sets a framework: national security cannot be invoked without evidence submitted to the file, and a simple disagreement with an editorial line cannot justify exclusion. In a country where access for editorial offices to institutions remains a sensitive topic, this American precedent is seen as a reminder of the minimum guarantees owed to any accredited press, regardless of the severity of their coverage of the ruling power.
