Lawyers representing CNN, MSNBC, and Politico stated on Monday that the White House failed to present any new evidence supporting its repeated claims that the news coverage by these three outlets endangered national security. The legal team filed a memorandum late Monday with the court as part of their efforts to persuade Judge Timothy Kelly to permanently reinstate press credentials for journalists from the three organizations. This follows President Donald Trump’s decision last month to revoke the access passes of reporters from these networks.
The attorneys accused the Trump administration of providing “shifting justifications” to defend its decision. They noted that the White House moved between citing undefined standards of professionalism and decorum and raising “vague and contrived” concerns regarding national security. The memorandum quoted the media organizations stating that Trump himself continued to publicly declare different motives for his decision. Recently, in an interview with Time magazine, Trump spoke extensively about barring the three outlets, arguing he should not be forced to endure what he described as “continuous negative stories.”
A critical hearing is scheduled for Thursday, where Judge Kelly will consider the request for a preliminary injunction to ensure continued access for the journalists. If granted, the order would remain in effect for a longer period until the case is finally resolved. Trump announced in late September that he was banning the three outlets from covering his activities at the White House, justifying the move by citing their “negative stories.” CNN, MSNBC, and Politico swiftly filed a lawsuit against the decision and temporarily regained access to the White House.
In his initial ruling, Judge Kelly emphasized the necessity of adhering to judicial precedents established in Washington D.C. for approximately five decades. These precedents prevent the administration from revoking press credentials without prior notice and an opportunity for the journalists to respond. The lawyers for the media groups asked the court to allow them to clarify why any additional restrictions on access might violate the Constitution. They also pointed out that the White House had “continued to target the plaintiffs in unexpected ways,” specifically noting the recent barring of CNN and Politico journalists from boarding Air Force One.
The legal team argued that the Oval Office and Air Force One are the “preferred platforms for this administration to hold press briefings.” They contended that the President cannot use the presidential plane to hold briefings and then claim unrestricted discretionary power to exclude media institutions based on the content of their coverage or alleged editorial bias. Judge Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, previously rejected the administration’s arguments that the ban was necessary due to the potential harm to national security caused by the coverage.
The three media organizations, represented by a single legal team, asserted that the White House engaged in discrimination and retaliation, violating First Amendment protections for a free press. Conversely, the Trump administration reaffirmed its position late last week, accusing the outlets of failing to meet professional and decorum standards by publishing sensitive details concerning national security. Concerns are growing within American media circles about the expanding scope of restrictions on journalists covering White House news. Seventy-seven media organizations, along with several press coalitions, expressed opposition to the White House’s attempts to block access before the court. A coalition of major American press institutions recently stated it remains concerned about the potential use of these measures to prevent other media organizations from covering White House news in the future.
