A Trump-appointed judge granted CNN, MSNOW, and Politico temporary access to the White House again following their banishment by Donald Trump for reporting “fake news.” The ruling granted a 14-day temporary restraining order requiring the White House to restore access for the media outlets.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly published his ruling early Thursday, about 1:30 a.m. ET. Just four and a half hours later, at 6 a.m., CNN reporter Betsy Klein and a photojournalist tried to enter the White House. Naturally, since the guards had almost certainly not received any guidance from the press office about the middle-of-the-night ruling, they barred Klein and the photojournalist from entry.
“There was no reason provided for the refusal,” CNN wrote on its website, “and CNN will continue to try to gain access as regular business hours start.”
Another CNN producer entered the White House “after 6:00 AM,” according to the network. “It was not immediately clear why the person had been able to access the building.”
Actually, it was very clear. CNN wanted to lead its story on the judge’s ruling, making it seem like the Trump White House was defying the law. “How dare you not give entry to our journalists at 6 a.m.!” It was a transparently stupid gambit that inadvertently shows why Trump wanted to ban them. The hypocrisy is appalling.
A few minutes later, the other CNN employee was given access to the building, probably after word reached the guards at the gate that their press passes had been restored.
I am not generally in favor of banning the media from anywhere. They’re going to write their story regardless of whether you hate them or not. “Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel,” Mark Twain supposedly said. Trump should follow that advice more often.
Judge Kelly cited the urgent needs of a “free press” and ordered the 78 journalists’ credentials returned for at least two weeks while further litigation plays out. He rejected the administration’s national security argument out of hand.
“The Court is skeptical — at least on this record — that Defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote in an eight-page ruling issued just before 1 a.m. Eastern.
“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ Plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting,” the judge added.
The judge noted that the administration provided no support for its assertion that any of the disputed stories contained classified information or actually damaged national security and said some of the reporting was months or years old, belying claims the administration’s claims of urgency by the administration.
Kelly also said the White House appeared to have violated the constitutional due process rights of the journalists by failing to give them advance notice that concerns about their reporting could lead to cancellation of their passes.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., the lead attorney for the news organizations, welcomed Kelly’s order and the speed with which he issued it.
“This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law,” Boutrous said in a statement. “We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action.”
In addition to citing the specious national security claims, Kelly noted that the reporters had no advance warning that their press passes would be pulled.
“The ‘general rule’ is that ‘individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them’ of a constitutionally protected interest,” Kelly wrote in his ruling.
Trump had no chance of maintaining his ban on the media outlets. Hypocrisy isn’t “just cause” to yank a reporter’s credentials, nor are bias and inaccuracy. The First Amendment is a plain-language constitutional amendment, and case law backs it to the hilt.
Trump would have had better luck working with King Canute to roll back the tide.
Recommended: How Will History See the Life and Works of Anthony Fauci?
