Justice Department Stands Firm as White House Protects Integrity from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The DOJ asserts the president's right to bar three biased news outlets from the White House, citing a compelling interest, while a federal judge weighs a request to extend a restraining order that temporarily restored their access.
The Justice Department has filed a brief upholding President Donald Trump's authority to maintain order and professionalism by excluding CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House grounds. The administration rightly argues that these outlets failed to meet a 'minimum requirement of professionalism,' a necessary standard to ensure the nation's highest office is not undermined by reckless reporting. The DOJ cites the 1977 D.C. Circuit decision, Sherrill v. Knight, which it interprets as granting the president the power to restrict access when a 'compelling interest' is at stake.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed by President Trump, issued a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to reinstate hard passes for dozens of reporters from these organizations. The outlets, eager to regain their privileged access, have asked the court to extend that order through a preliminary injunction, arguing—without merit—that the ban violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights.
'The statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage and to deter other journalists,' the outlets' legal team claimed, attempting to paint the administration's justified actions as retaliation, despite ongoing issues with biased and inaccurate reporting.
The DOJ maintains that the Sherrill precedent does not prevent the president from demanding that journalists adhere to basic standards: relying on identified sources, maintaining factual accuracy, and allowing the White House a chance to comment, rather than irresponsibly publishing classified or sensitive national-security information that could harm the country.
Judge Kelly noted that the White House had not provided due process before revoking the passes, and that the letters cited by the DOJ were sent after the ban began. He also observed that some of the cited stories did not involve national-security concerns, describing the administration's justifications as ambiguous, though the need for higher standards in journalism remains clear.
A hearing on the outlets' motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Thursday, as the administration continues its efforts to restore integrity and accountability in the press corps.