The Department of Justice is defending a ban on access to the White House for CNN, MS Now, and Politico. The administration says that reporting by these outlets on topics like the East Wing bunker construction and Iran war ammunition stockpiles posed a threat to national security. The president announced the ban on September 18 and reporters from the three outlets had their White House credentials disabled or confiscated the following day.
The three news organizations filed a lawsuit on Monday, claiming the decision violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights, according to NPR. In their court filing, the Department of Justice argued that access to the White House is a privilege and not a constitutional right. The DOJ submitted letters from the White House dated September 22, which were sent four days after the ban took effect.
These letters cited specific stories that the administration found concerning, including details on ballroom construction and war munitions, according to a report from NBC News. The ban was part of a broader pattern of actions against media the president considers hostile or inaccurate. In his first term, Trump removed press credentials from CNN correspondent Jim Acosta. During his second term, the White House also restricted Associated Press access to the Oval Office and Air Force One over the outlet’s decision to continue using the name Gulf of Mexico.
Judge Timothy Kelly, who was appointed by Trump in 2017, held a hearing on the case Wednesday. Kelly previously ruled in favor of CNN when it challenged a similar move by the White House in 2018. In that case, Kelly ordered the White House to temporarily restore Jim Acosta’s credential after finding that proper procedures had not been followed.
The president has repeatedly stated that his decision was based on the overall tone of coverage rather than any single story. Trump also said negative reporting was dangerous for the country, echoing remarks he made after the ban was announced, ABC News reported. According to NPR, Trump said before the lawsuit that his decision reflected what he described as two years of unfair and negative coverage rather than one specific report.
The decision to prevent CNN from carrying out its scheduled pool duties led the other major television networks to suspend their participation in White House TV pool coverage. TV pool coverage, where one network covers an event and shares the footage with others, was suspended until further notice. CNN had been scheduled to handle pool coverage during Trump’s trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly.
Print and radio pools continued to operate as normal during this time. The Associated Press, along with The Washington Post and The New York Times, chose not to publish photographs of Trump’s events on Monday. The conflict between the president and news organizations has intensified in recent days, with tensions rising over what the administration considers fair or unfair coverage.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik accused the outlets of publishing classified information and argued that they knew doing so was illegal. Attorneys for the news organizations disputed the administration’s national-security justification and argued that the outlets were being punished because of their reporting.
Kelly questioned whether letters sent after the credentials were revoked could provide the notice required under previous court decisions. He said the process established in earlier cases did not appear to have been followed. The judge did not immediately rule on the outlets’ request for a temporary restraining order but said he would issue a decision soon.
The Associated Press and other outlets have expressed concern about the long-term impact of such actions on press freedom. Experts like Robert Thompson from Syracuse University’s Bleier Center said that while the ban may not last forever, it could affect how people access important information. Thompson noted that Trump’s comments about negative media coverage being dangerous are troubling for the idea of press freedom.
He warned that casual remarks like these could erode public trust in democratic institutions. Thompson told the Associated Press that the more serious issue involved what such comments could mean for freedoms traditionally associated with the press.
The situation remains under legal review following Wednesday’s court hearing. Kelly has not yet issued a decision on the request to temporarily restore the outlets’ White House access. The case will test how much power the executive branch has in limiting press access.
IMAGE: Shealeah Craighead (1976–) CC0