Trump cites national security to defend media ban in court - USA Today
WASHINGTON – Justice Department attorneys contend that the three media outlets President Donald Trump barred from the White House fail to meet basic "journalistic standards" and pose national security threats because of their reporting of classified and sensitive information.
The arguments are detailed in the government's Sept. 22 response to a federal lawsuit that CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed against Trump seeking to regain access to the White House after Trump banned the outlets. A court hearing in the case is set for Wednesday, Sept. 23, before U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly.
"Defendants may lawfully deny access to Plaintiffs because the President has concluded they fail to satisfy the minimum requirements of professionalism," the government's response reads, adding that Trump believes such standards require "calling, asking for comment, and providing a reasonable opportunity for a response."
"At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information," it continues.
The government's attorneys – representing Trump and other White House officials listed as co-defendants – asked the judge to deny the three media outlets' request for an injunction to halt Trump's ban.
Representatives of CNN, MS NOW and Politico did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Justice Department's response to the lawsuit highlights multiple stories from the three outlets based on anonymous sourcing that the government alleges "threatened national security." The examples, detailed in letters to each publication on Tuesday, include stories on national security elements planned for Trump's White House ballroom, information about the Iran war and U.S. munitions stockpiles.
"Plaintiffs’ reporting gives rise to reasons to doubt their trustworthiness and, in fact, the President has determined that Plaintiffs have reported classified or sensitive information bearing on national security," the government's motion reads. "Defendants have a compelling governmental interest in protecting such information."
The government says Trump also has a “compelling interest in limiting access to White House grounds to organizations that do not pose such a risk to national security.”
Yet the government also takes issue with reporting that does not involve national security issues. Attorneys single out a Politico report, for example, that painted Trump's recent Republican midterm convention in Dallas as a "disaster," arguing that the convention's strong livestream viewership proves it wasn't.
The outlets' lawsuit argues Trump's media ban denied CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters their First Amendment rights to a free press under the Constitution and their right to due process under the 14th Amendment.
In its response, the government says, "Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right."
On Sept. 19, the day after Trump announced his ban, reporters for CNN, MS NOW and Politico were blocked by security from entering the White House, and their White House press passes were confiscated. Reporters from the two television networks moved outside the White House to a nearby sidewalk to conduct their live shots.
Trump has defended the ban by arguing that it only targets outlets he believes are unfair to him and fixated on negative coverage about his presidency that he calls "fake news." Yet Trump himself referred to the action as a "ban on the free press" shortly after he announced it on Friday, Sept. 18.
Other co-defendants listed in the lawsuit besides Trump are White House communications aide Steven Cheung, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Secret Service Director Sean Curran.
Kelly, a Trump appointee during the president's first term, is no stranger to freedom-of-press cases brought against Trump. In 2018, he ruled for CNN after correspondent Jim Acosta had his press credentials stripped, and ordered the White House to allow Acosta to keep his press pass.
The lawsuit references Kelly's decision in the Acosta case as one precedent.
The lawsuit also cites the 1977 Sherrill v. Knight case, when a federal appeals court ruled that the White House cannot arbitrarily deny press passes to reporters based on the content of their coverage if the White House has voluntarily opened its doors to media and established facilities for the press.
Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
