{"id":135774,"date":"2026-09-24T08:17:59","date_gmt":"2026-09-24T15:17:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marinresists.com\/?p=135774"},"modified":"2026-09-24T18:43:25","modified_gmt":"2026-09-25T01:43:25","slug":"press-ban-ruling-shows-trump-administration-cant-just-say-national-security-and-win","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ms.now\/deadline-white-house\/deadline-legal-blog\/white-house-press-ban-ruling-trump-national-security","title":{"rendered":"Press ban ruling shows Trump administration can\u2019t just say \u2018national security\u2019 and win"},"content":{"rendered":"

KEEP MSNBC ON THE AIR: SUBSCRIBE<\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

Courts give great deference<\/a> to presidents on matters of national security. But the ruling against Donald Trump\u2019s White House press ban<\/a> shows that such deference only goes so far.<\/p>\n

Explaining his rationale for issuing a temporary restraining order in favor of reporters from MS NOW, CNN and Politico, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly wrote that<\/a> he was \u201cskeptical\u201d that the government\u2019s asserted national security interest was \u201cthe actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of\u201d journalists\u2019 White House press passes.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a straightforward observation from the jurist, who was appointed to the bench by Trump in his first term. But it is nonetheless remarkable to see in the black-and-white of a judicial opinion, given how much power presidents have in national security matters. Against that backdrop, that a judge is confident in publishing his disbelief of the government\u2019s position, even in a temporary ruling, shows how weak that position is.<\/p>\n

Kelly noted that courts are \u201chighly deferential\u201d to the executive branch when national security is invoked. \u201cStill, on this record, [government] Defendants offer little to back up their asserted national security interest to justify revocation of [journalist] Plaintiffs\u2019 hard passes,\u201d the judge wrote. He recounted that when Trump announced that he was banning the reporters from the White House, the president wasn\u2019t focused on national security but rather \u201con the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs\u2019 reporting.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge added that the administration\u2019s after-the-fact justifications for the ban were \u201cambiguous about the true purpose of the revocations: while Defendants\u2019 letters to Plaintiffs mention national security concerns, they purport to identify reporting that \u2018threatened national security and\/or spread falsehoods,\u2019 leaving open the possibility that all the stories fall into the later bucket, rather than the former.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another reason Kelly declined to credit the security claim is that the government couldn\u2019t adequately explain how banning the reporters from the White House would \u201cin fact protect national security\u201d or how \u201cnational security will be endangered if the Court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump himself has signaled that he knew he would lose even before Kelly ruled \u2014 not because of the legal weakness of his position but because he believed that losing before this particular judge was a foregone conclusion, after Kelly backed journalist Jim Acosta in a similar case during Trump\u2019s first term.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey have drawn a great Judge, for them,\u201d Trump wrote of the news organizations in a Truth Social post<\/a> on Monday. \u201cIn other words, almost without question and, as usual, we\u2019ll go for appeal because Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown \u2018sources,\u2019 shouldn\u2019t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World,\u201d the president wrote.<\/p>\n

In his opinion explaining why he issued the two-week temporary restraining order, Kelly noted that such orders are generally unappealable. But even if the case reaches the Supreme Court, the justices may have a difficult time ruling for Trump on national security grounds, despite the prior deference<\/a> they have given him.<\/p>\n

The latest step in the litigation is that the plaintiff news organizations have already accused the government of failing to comply with Kelly\u2019s order by barring them from the White House on Thursday morning. \u201cDefendants have already repeatedly violated the Court\u2019s Order. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set a hearing by videoconference or teleconference as soon as possible this morning,\u201d they said in a notice<\/a> to the judge. He ordered the administration to respond by 12:30 p.m. ET on Thursday.<\/p>\n

The post Press ban ruling shows Trump administration can\u2019t just say \u2018national security\u2019 and win<\/a> appeared first on MS NOW<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[SAVE MSNBC: JUST SUBSCRIBE TO IT<\/span><\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

You can watch MSNBC online by subscribing to a streaming service that includes MSNBC, such as Hulu + Live TV, Sling, or Peacock<\/mark>.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n

Hulu + Live TV<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/strong>
\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n