三家在唐纳德·特朗普总统禁止它们进入白宫场地后起诉白宫的新闻机构已修改了诉状。它们现在请求一名联邦法官永久恢复它们的采访权，不仅限于白宫，还包括椭圆形办公室和“空军一号”等其他区域。
Three news organizations that sued the White House after President Donald Trump banned them from the grounds have amended their lawsuit. They are now asking a federal judge to permanently restore their access, not just to the White House but to other areas including the Oval Office and Air Force One.
这三家新闻机构——MS NOW、CNN和《政客》——提交的修正起诉状，是在联邦法官蒂莫西·凯利无限期推翻特朗普的禁令并恢复它们进入白宫的采访权两周后提出的。自该裁决以来，特朗普政府仍继续禁止这三家新闻机构的记者进入记者团，而记者团保障对总统的全天候报道。
The amended complaint filed by the news outlets — MS NOW, CNN and Politico — comes two weeks after U.S. Judge Timothy Kelly indefinitely reversed Trump’s ban and restored their access to the White House. Since that ruling, the Trump administration has continued to bar reporters from those three news outlets from the pool, which guarantees coverage of the president at all times.
白宫记者团是根据白宫与新闻机构之间的一项长期协议成立的，由一小群记者代表全体白宫记者团成员报道总统活动——通常随行采访。在白宫禁止CNN和《政客》担任记者团成员的日子里，其他媒�出于团结拒绝替补。
The White House press pool was formed as part of a long-standing agreement between the White House and news organizations in which a small group of journalists agrees to cover the president — often traveling with him — on behalf of the entire press corps. On the days the White House has banned CNN and Politico from serving in the pool, other outlets have declined to fill in for them in solidarity.
这三家新闻机构的律师辩称，特朗普政府对记者团采访的限制同样违反了《第一修正案》和《第五修正案》的正当程序条款。他们请求凯利法官恢复这三家机构在禁令实施前就已拥有的、针对所有指定由记者团报道的总统活动的采访权。
Lawyers for the three news outlets argued the Trump administration’s restrictions surrounding pool coverage also violate both the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. They are asking Kelly to restore access to all three outlets as it existed before the ban was implemented for all presidential events designated for pool coverage.
“这些排除反映了一项未明说的政策，旨在将总统要求将其基于观点的歧视性和报复性禁令‘推向极限’的指令贯彻落实，”它们在修正起诉状中写道。
“These exclusions reflect an unstated policy to carry out the President’s directive to take his viewpoint-discriminatory and retaliatory ban ‘as far as you can,’’” they wrote in the amended lawsuit.
他们指控总统明确表示，希望限制椭圆形办公室的准入，仅限于他认为报道不利于自己的新闻机构，并特别指出白宫的一份声明称，被禁的新闻机构“在总统的椭圆形办公室里没有资格要求占有一席之地”。律师们还专门辩称，白宫干涉CNN履行其作为主要电视网络池组成员的职责，违反了第五修正案的正当程序条款。CNN处于独特地位，因为它是三家受影响机构中唯一一家担任主要电视网络池组成员的机构——该小组由五家网络组成，轮流提供总统活动的实时电视报道。
They alleged that the president has explicitly said he wants to limit Oval Office access to news organizations that he believes cover him unfavorably, pointing specifically to a White House statement that said the banned news organizations have “no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office.”The lawyers also specifically argued that the White House’s interference with CNN’s ability to perform its role as the primary television network for pool duty violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. CNN is in a unique position because it is the only one of the three affected organizations that serves in the primary television network pool — the group of five networks that rotate to offer real-time television coverage of the president.
“45年来，CNN一直是负责人员配备、设备提供并承担主要电视网络池组相关费用的五家网络之一，美国公众（以及白宫本身）依赖该池组获取总统在椭圆形办公室、空军一号上以及许多其他因规模和其他限制无法容纳所有记者团成员的总统活动的实时报道，”起诉书称。
“For 45 years, CNN has been one of the five networks that staff, equip, and bear the costs associated with the primary network television pool upon which the American public (and the White House itself) relies for real-time coverage of the President in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One and at the many other presidential events that due to size and other constraints simply cannot accommodate all members of the press corps,” the complaint says.
律师们指出，CNN为履行池组职责所承担的巨大成本，包括摄制组、设备、人员配备和差旅费用。
The lawyers pointed to the significant costs CNN incurs to perform its pool duties, including crews, equipment, staffing and travel.
“这些巨额投资——是基于白宫长期以来遵守记者团分配惯例而作出的——赋予 CNN 在被指派时继续充分履行记者团职责的权利，”律师写道。“被告在没有通知、没有标准、没有听证机会的情况下，干涉 CNN 履行这些职责的能力，剥夺了 CNN 的自由和财产权益。”
“These substantial investments — which were made in reliance on the White House’s longstanding practice of honoring pool assignments — entitle CNN to continue to fully perform its pool duties when designated,” the lawyers wrote. “Defendants have deprived CNN of its liberty and property interests by interfering with CNN’s ability to perform those duties with no notice, no standards, and no opportunity to be heard.”
一名白宫官员回应 MS NOW 称：“任何个人和任何记者都没有宪法赋予的权利进入总统的椭圆形办公室、空军一号或其他敏感和私人设施。”司法部拒绝置评。
A White House official responded to MS NOW, saying, “No person and no journalist has a constitutional right to access to the President’s Oval Office, Air Force One, or other sensitive and private facilities.”The Justice Department declined to comment.
如果没有记者团——特别是没有 CNN 的摄像机——特朗普最近的几场活动都未能按惯例进行报道。CNN 和《政治报》原定担任特朗普周一前往密西西比州行程的记者团成员。白宫再次禁止他们登上空军一号，不得不由备用记者团记者——来自一家印刷媒体而非电视机构——介入，提供该行程的文字更新。
Without the pool — particularly without CNN’s cameras — several of Trump’s recent events have not been covered in the usual way. CNN and Politico were both scheduled to serve as the pool for Trump’s trip to Mississippi on Monday. Once again, the White House barred them from traveling on Air Force One, and the secondary pool reporter — for a print, not TV, organization — had to step in to provide written updates of the trip.
律师辩称，空军一号行程还为美国民众提供关键历史事件的报道，特别指出了对约翰·肯尼迪遇刺案的报道，以及“9·11”恐怖袭击期间对乔治·W·布什的报道。
The Air Force One trips also provide Americans coverage of critical historic events, the lawyers argued, pointing specifically to coverage of John F. Kennedy’s assassination and of George W. Bush during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
MS NOW、CNN 和《政治报》的律师辩称，对记者团采访权的限制不仅影响相关媒体机构，也影响公众获取总统活动报道的权利。
Lawyers for MS NOW, CNN and Politico argued that restrictions on pool access affect not only the media organizations in question but also the public’s access to coverage of the president.
在一份声明中，代表新闻机构的律师泰德·布特罗斯告诉 MS NOW：“尽管法院已两度下令限制其执行总统针对 CNN、MS NOW 和《政治报》的违宪禁令，白宫仍继续违反第一修正案和正当程序条款，将这些新闻机构排除在椭圆形办公室和‘空军一号’等区域之外——这些正是总统最频繁与记者接触的场所。”“这些排除措施旨在惩罚并威慑总统不喜欢的政府报道，使新闻界更难为美国民众的利益报道世界上一些最重要的事件。CNN、MS NOW 和《政治报》将继续为维护其报道新闻的权利而战，”布特罗斯补充道。
In a statement, lawyer Ted Boutrous, who represents the news organizations, told MS NOW, “Despite two court orders restraining it from implementing the President’s unconstitutional ban on CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO, the White House has continued to violate the First Amendment and due process by excluding those news organizations from areas such as the Oval Office and Air Force One — the very locations that the President most frequently engages with the press.”“These exclusions, intended to punish and chill coverage of the administration that the President doesn’t like, make it harder for the press to cover some of the most important events in the world for the benefit of the American people. CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO will continue to fight to vindicate their rights to report the news,” Boutrous added.
记者团准入限制问题已通过法庭文件和辩论在案件中提出，但并非直接摆在法官面前的问题。案件第一阶段主要聚焦于特朗普禁令实施前的白宫准入问题。直到现在，诉讼并未直接涉及记者团准入，但律师曾辩称记者需要白宫采访证才能参加记者团。
The issue of pool restrictions has already arisen in the case through court filings and arguments, but it has not been a part of the question directly before the judge. The first phase of this case focused primarily on access to the White House itself as it existed before Trump’s ban. Until now, the lawsuit did not directly address pool access, but lawyers had made the argument that journalists need White House credentials to participate in the pool.
凯利写道：“记录清楚地表明，有关决定是由特朗普总统作出的。他宣布禁令以及后来解释禁令理由的言论，使这一结论显而易见：特朗普总统很可能因为认为原告的报道总体上不准确且带有针对他的偏见，而将原告禁止进入白宫。” 裁决作出后，特朗普政府向哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院提起上诉，但该上诉仍在审理中。
“The record is clear that President Trump made the decision at issue,” Kelly wrote. “And his announcement of the ban and later remarks explaining the reason for it makes this a straightforward conclusion: President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”In the wake of the ruling, the Trump administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but that appeal remains pending.
凯利的裁决某种程度上是预料之中的，因为哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院曾裁定，白宫不得任意拒绝记者的新闻通行证，因为进入白宫采访的权利受第一修正案保护，未经正当法律程序不得撤销。不过，记者团（pool）采访权的问题尚未完全尘埃落定。
Kelly’s ruling was somewhat of a foregone conclusion, because the D.C. Circuit has held that the White House may not arbitrarily deny a journalist a press credential since press access to the White House is protected by the First Amendment and may not be revoked without due process. The issue of pool access is less settled, though. Last year, the D.C.
去年，哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院允许特朗普暂时禁止美联社在某些场合采访总统。该命令认定，特朗普限制新闻机构进入仅限受邀场所（如椭圆形办公室或“空军一号”）的做法是合法的。该裁决暂停了下级法院支持美联社、确认其采访权的判决。
Circuit allowed Trump to block The Associated Press from covering the president in certain spaces, at least for now. That order found it was legal for Trump to restrict access to a news organization in invite-only spaces, like the Oval Office or Air Force One. That ruling paused a lower court’s ruling that had sided with the AP to affirm their access.
但该上诉法院裁决仅是暂停下级法院判决，这意味着它不具有约束力的法律先例效力。该案仍在审理中，尚未就实质问题作出最终裁决。
But that appellate ruling was only a pause in a lower court’s ruling, which means it is not binding legal precedent. That case remains pending, and there has been no final ruling on the merits.
MS NOW、CNN和《政治报》的律师还辩称，自哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院认定采访权可被限制以来，事实情况已发生变化。他们表示，特朗普在椭圆形办公室和“空军一号”等场所举行了大部分媒体见面会，因此，根据第一修正案，这些场所不得对部分媒体关闭。
Lawyers for MS NOW, CNN and Politico also argued that the facts have developed since the D.C. Circuit found that access could be restricted. They said Trump has held the majority of his press availability in spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One, and because of that, those spaces cannot be restricted to some outlets under the First Amendment.
他们写道：“2025年，特朗普总统在詹姆斯·S·布雷迪新闻发布室露面两次，总共回答了约51个问题。相比之下，他在椭圆形办公室举行了95场媒体活动，回答了不少于1991个问题。在‘空军一号’上和停机坪上，总统向记者开放采访70次，回答了不少于1186个问题。”“虽然詹姆斯·S·布雷迪新闻发布室仍然是记者采集和报道新闻的关键论坛，但在这些传统区域总统回答的近5000个问题中，97%要么是在椭圆形办公室，要么是在乘坐‘空军一号’出行期间提出的。”他们补充道。
“In 2025, President Trump made two appearances in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room where he fielded a total of approximately 51 questions,” they wrote. “By contrast, he held 95 press events in the Oval office where he fielded no fewer than 1,991 questions. On Air Force One and on the tarmac, the President made himself available to the press 70 times and fielded no fewer than 1,186 questions.”“While the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room remains a critical forum for reporters to gather and report the news, of the nearly 5,000 questions the President has entertained from reporters in these traditional areas, 97% were either in the Oval Office or in connection with his travel aboard Air Force One,” they added.
他们辩称，这些统计数据表明，记者团采访不仅至关重要，而且根据《第一修正案》是有保障的。
These statistics, they argued, make pool access not only critical but guaranteed under the First Amendment.