The media “ban” has been temporarily lifted, thanks to Judge Timothy Kelly’s overnight ruling, but this is still a highly fluid situation.

There are a bunch of big unknowns regarding the president and the press “ban” story. Will President Trump want to keep this fight going? Will he try other ways to kick out reporters? Or will he and the Justice Department accept this loss and move on?

Right now, it’s anyone’s guess. But as CNN’s Evan Perez reminded me just now, “Trump himself said on social media that he planned to appeal (before the judge had even ruled against him).”

The three banned newsrooms won a temporary restraining order, but it’ll expire in 14 days. Lawyers for the newsrooms must file a motion for a preliminary injunction by Monday, and lawyers for the government must reply by next Friday.

A hearing will be scheduled at some point, Kelly said, adding that “intends to rule expeditiously.” Tierney Sneed has details here.

The judge may have some questions about why his order was not implemented “immediately.” Reporters were turned away repeatedly, and the timeline of events does not match up with the White House’s sworn declaration about what happened.

On the other hand, his early afternoon order denying another emergency hearing suggests he’s “ready to move on” from those hiccups, Sneed told me.

Now, as for the next steps in the court fight, CNN’s Katelyn Polantz notes that it’s not unusual for the dates and deadlines to shift in court, or for the grounds of a case to change before the next judge’s order.

Nor is it unusual for the president’s mood to shift. But given that he casually throws around the word “treasonous” to describe basic acts of journalism — and belatedly invoked “national security” to justify the ban — it stands to reason that he’ll keep trying to exclude disfavored news outlets.

And that’s why continued solidarity is so critical. I’ve been doing interviews with CNN affiliates from Ireland to Australia today, and I can tell from some of the anchor questions that they’re surprised by the level of cooperation among usual competitors.

Right now, the five major TV networks that usually handle live coverage of Trump events are still in a holding pattern, given the uncertainty of the past few days.

The NYT’s top homepage headline currently says “Reporters Return to the White House, but TV Standoff Persists.”

As a result, we’re only seeing and hearing bits and pieces of Xi Jinping’s state visit. And the president is perturbed about that — see below.

On “The Lead” just now, Jake Tapper asked Ted Boutrous, the counsel for CNN/MS NOW/Politico, if CNN’s ability to take part in the TV pool is part of the legal case.

Boutrous responded, “We believe that is covered by the temporary restraining order… We think that that restoration of access means back into the pool, which is good for President Trump and the administration, and it’s good for the American people to get the pool back up and running.”

I think Boutrous is signaling that a resumption of TV pool coverage will happen in relatively short order.

“Take in this extraordinary moment,” Dana Bash said during “Inside Politics” this afternoon. “As we speak, the president is hosting the Chinese Communist leader, and instead of showing him by example how important it was to have a free press and abide by the checks and balances of democracy, he was, until just a few moments ago, blocking American media and defying a federal judge.”

While lacking physical access to the White House complex this morning, CNN correspondents kept doing their thing, and Kristen Holmes and Alayna Treene reported the following: “Chinese officials had privately expressed concern to some of Trump’s advisers that the current pool ban would negatively impact how the trip was covered, one source told CNN.”

They added: “The issue has also worried White House officials, who know both Trump and Xi wanted robust coverage of the summit, another adviser said.”

Perhaps seeking more “robustness,” the White House press shop unexpectedly opened up Trump and Xi’s Oval Office meeting to still photographers — but not other pool representatives, like print reporters — shortly before noon.

Then Trump made light of the utter lack of press freedom in China, as if it’s something to envy rather than denounce.

“Very briefly in front of news photographers, Trump noted that Xi has the friendliest press corps in the world,” The Associated Press reported. “The U.S. president quipped that the Chinese press ask Xi for permission to speak.”

The AP dispatch then noted that “China is one of the most oppressive environments for journalists in the world.”

Maybe the president’s brief comments were an awkward form of small talk. According to The AP, “he later praised New York Times photojournalist Doug Mills, calling him ‘handsome’ and complimenting his Pulitzer Prizes.”

But back to the larger point here: I don’t think it’s possible to count the number of times Trump has sounded envious of autocratic leaders in the last ten years.

And, as CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali put it during our live chat on “The Arena” just now, “the president seems unwilling or unable to praise democracies with the enthusiasm he shows for autocrats.”

Just now, the president posted a screed on Truth Social against CNN and MS NOW saying they “refused to cover one of the Biggest and Most Beautiful Events to take place in many years,” Xi’s arrival at the White House.

“The event was magnificent — Actually made for Television but, because they’re Fake News, and because they knew how good it would be, they didn’t want credit to be given to ‘TRUMP,’ they refused to be there.”

That’s just false. CNN and MS NOW journalists wanted to be there this morning, but were refused entry to the White House. The TV pool declined to cover the event accordingly.

Earlier today I reported that some newsroom insiders were rather surprised to see Reuters distributing a White House-produced live feed of the Trump–Xi state visit to its subscribers. One of Reuters’ main rivals, The Associated Press, pointedly refused to do so.

Some news outlets have policies against publishing so-called “handout” video from government agencies. For example, PBS said earlier this week that, “in support of free and fair journalistic access, PBS News is not publishing video or still images provided by the administration.”

But to be fair to Reuters, it’s in a different position, with paying customers all around the world who wanted (they might say needed) the raw material from the White House.

Reuters, I’m told, would have preferred to have its own crew filming the event, but had to ingest the White House feed instead.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the news agency told me, “Reuters believes that journalists should be free to report the news without interference wherever they are, and we support our colleagues at other news organizations in strongly condemning infringements of First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.”

More: “At Reuters, whenever there is news that matters to the world, the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles require us to provide independent, reliable and impartial coverage. We operate in 165 countries, including many where the media is unwelcome or under attack, and will continue to cover the news in the U.S. just as we do everywhere else.”

Andrew Kirell writes: Some news out of Oakland this afternoon: Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín did not give the official “OK” to Paramount’s settlement with the 12 state attorneys general who sued to block its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, giving both sides until noon PT Monday to respond to a letter from Sen. Cory Booker urging closer scrutiny of the deal.

“We will work to get you a ruling in due course,” she said.

Martínez-Olguín pressed attorneys for Paramount and the states on how they negotiated the settlement and whether it addresses the states’ competition concerns.

“The court isn’t a rubber stamp,” she said at the outset. “I have some questions.”

California attorney Paula Blizzard acknowledged the controversy surrounding the merger but said many political and media-related objections fall outside antitrust law. “We hear those voices, we listen to those voices, we respect those voices,” she said. “But at the end of the day, this is an antitrust case, and it is focused on the antitrust law.”

She also referenced reports that Paramount CEO David Ellison had threatened to exit California if the merger was blocked, saying attempts at “threatening” and “blackmailing us” did not affect the antitrust case.