When President Trump announced he was kicking three news organizations out of the White House, he made clear it was because of his displeasure with their reporting. But days into the ban, he turned to a familiar argument to justify his decision. It was about national security.
Page B1From§Eachthe supper edition — 26 September 2026
Judge asks if national security can ever justify banning reporters; White House tries it again days later
As it ran on the front
On September 22, in a filing to a federal court, government lawyers made their case in writing: access to the White House press pool is a privilege, not a right. Common Dreams called the phrase itself "dangerous." Could national security reasons "ever be a winner" in a case like this? U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly wanted to know. The lawyers for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico — the three outlets Trump had banned after saying plainly he was displeased with their reporting — were in court that day because the networks had already suspended their own presidential pool in protest, CBS News reported, and sued to get it back on First Amendment grounds.
Anthony Scaramucci, a former White House communications director, told The Hill that a different press secretary — Karoline Leavitt — would have told Trump not to do this at all. So, he said, would John Kelly. That is the closest thing to a defense this ban has drawn from inside the building: not a claim that it was wise, just a suggestion that a smarter aide might have talked him out of it.…
…(cont) On Thursday, a court order restored the three outlets' access. It lasted two days. On Friday night, the White House pulled CNN's credentials again, this time for a Saturday trip to Tennessee — a trip CNN was covering on behalf of every major network, under the same pool arrangement the courts had just put back together. And this time, The Hill reported, the administration reached for the same word Judge Kelly had asked about two days earlier: national security. Not the reporting, not the pool, not the lawsuit — national security, the argument a sitting federal judge had openly wondered whether courts should ever accept from this White House, deployed again before the ink on his questions had dried.
Nobody has had to. The word isn't describing a risk. It's describing a permission slip the government wrote for itself the moment a judge asked to see one.
“They tell you it's national security, but security from what — a camera crew on a charter flight? A judge asked them straight up if that argument could ever hold water, and two days later they ran it back on the same reporters. This isn't about protecting anything, it's about who gets to write about the President, and once they can pick the press pool, they can pick who covers your city council next.”
“Access to that plane is a privilege the President extends, it's not some birthright in the Constitution, and the national security concerns here are absolutely — okay, nobody's put a specific concern on paper, but silence isn't the same as nothing. The judge can ask his hypotheticals all day, this is executive discretion, plain and simple. And it's certainly not retaliation for the coverage, it's — well, he did say at the time it was about the coverage. Forget I said that.”
The receipts
A federal judge questioned on Wednesday whether the Trump administration can rely on national security concerns to justify barring CNN, MS Now, and Politico from the White House. Could national security reasons “ever be a winner?” U.S.
At an emergency hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump is set to hear three media outlets' request for a temporary restraining order blocking the administration's denial of press access to the White House—and is likely to hear from government lawyers the " dangerous " argument…
The White House on Friday night removed CNN from joining President Donald Trump on his trip to Tennessee on Saturday, where it was supposed to cover the president on behalf of major TV networks.
Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said Wednesday that former Trump White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt would have advised President Trump to not enact his recent press ban. “A [former Trump White House chief of staff] John Kelly would have told him not to do that. I actually think a Karoline Levitt…
CNN won’t be able to join President Trump on a Saturday trip to Tennessee. He had banned CNN and two other news outlets from the White House, but a court order on Thursday restored their access.
Television networks have suspended the presidential press pool after President Trump banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from covering the White House. Now, the outlets are suing the administration to restore access. Mr.
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front. The byline is a pen name for a column drafted by a machine and checked by the editor: how this is made.