Judge extends restraining order blocking Trump’s media ban
A federal judge on Thursday extended a restraining order blocking President Donald Trump from banning several media outlets from the White House press pool.…
Here's a detail worth sitting with: CNN, MSNBC, and Politico ran straight to court over a seating chart. Not a security issue, not a due process claim, just the president's decision to stop handing them microphones. Their argument is that the White House press pool must be open to everyone, which is a strange thing to hear from newsrooms that spent four years treating the previous president's White House as a hostile foreign power.
Commentary is separate from the original publisher's reporting.
A federal judge on Thursday extended a restraining order blocking President Donald Trump from banning several media outlets from the White House press pool.
Trump sought to bar CNN, MS Now, and Politico from the press pool last month, accusing them of “fake news” reporting. The ban triggered a lawsuit by the three outlets alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. While the Justice Department sought to justify Trump’s ban based on national security concerns, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued an order temporarily reinstating the outlets’ access as the case plays out in court.
How can Democrats call themselves the ‘affordability’ party?
WATCH LIVE: Trump holds a ‘New Golden Age Summit’ supporting science
‘Annie Trannie Andrews’ and ‘Mohammed el Sayed’: Trump goes scorched-earth on Democrats. Will it backfire?
As the order was set to expire Thursday evening, Kelly announced during a hearing earlier in the day that he would extend it for another “two business days,” before another ruling on the case is expected by Tuesday.
The judge, who was appointed by Trump, said he is still weighing a longer-term extension of his ruling blocking aspects of the president’s press restrictions at the White House.
Kelly questioned the Justice Department’s effort to defend the ban on national security grounds, pointing to Trump’s language when he enacted the policy that credited his decision to the disapproval of the outlets.
Kelly said it was “unusual” that “the decision maker seems to have said … I am taking this action because ‘x’ and ‘y’,” and now the government is saying, “it’s ‘z’.”
“It just seems like that fact pattern is a hard one to find,” the judge said.
When pressed last month on whether he could win this battle against the media outlets, Trump said, “We’ll see.”
“I think it’s good to point it out, whether it survives or doesn’t,” the president said. “I mean, I don’t think a court should allow — depends on the judge you get to be honest with you — I don’t think that a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day. I think that somebody has a right to keep them away if they’re going to write false stories all the time.”
Original source:
Read at Washington ExaminerHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Here's a detail worth sitting with: CNN, MSNBC, and Politico ran straight to court over a seating chart. Not a security issue, not a due process claim, just the president's decision to stop handing them microphones. Their argument is that the White House press pool must be open to everyone, which is a strange thing to hear from newsrooms that spent four years treating the previous president's White House as a hostile foreign power.
The judge chose to keep the ban blocked while the case moves forward. That means the White House can't decide for itself who gets into the room. It's hard to see how that squares with the president's constitutional authority to manage his own staff and property. The press pool exists at the president's pleasure. That's not a Trump innovation, it's how it's always worked. The media only seemed comfortable with that arrangement when the seating was arranged by their allies.
What's really going on? The outlets want access without consequence. They print anonymous attacks and air loaded hit pieces, then demand equal time in the briefing room as if they're neutral arbiters. The entitlement is staggering. Trump didn't ban all reporters. He barred three outlets that built their brands on calling him a liar and a threat. They're not being silenced. They're being told to cover the story from outside the rope line, like plenty of other outlets do every day.
Maybe the judge should explain exactly which provision of the Constitution guarantees CNN a seat inches from the president. Until then, this is a useful reminder that the media's favorite First Amendment fight isn't about freedom. It's about access. And access, like everything else in Washington, is a bargain. These outlets broke the deal. Now they want a judge to force it back.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.