Justice Department invokes national security. The judge finds the evidence lacking.

The national security argument has not, for now, enabled the Trump administration to keep CNN, MS NOW and Politico out of the White House. On September 24, Judge Timothy Kelly ordered their permanent press credentials restored for fourteen days. His decision does not dispute the importance of national security, but challenges the evidence supporting this particular exclusion. [2]

The Justice Department’s argument

In its September 22 opposition, the Justice Department describes White House access as a privilege. The administration alleges that the three news organisations breached professional standards and published sensitive or classified information. It cites reporting about construction and security facilities at the White House and an alleged leak investigation, among other examples. These are the administration’s allegations; the filing does not independently establish their accuracy. [1]

According to the Justice Department, such reporting can create security risks and require officials to spend time investigating possible leaks. The administration also argues that the outlets can continue publishing from outside the grounds. It therefore disputes both their entitlement to access and the extent of the harm caused by exclusion. [1]

The missing link

Kelly’s order examines the connection between the restriction and its stated purpose. He finds no factual support in the record for the claim that revoking the passes protects national security, or that temporarily restoring them would endanger it. The declarations provide general information about classified material, but no concrete explanation of how the identified stories harmed national security. [2]

There is also a practical objection. According to the judge, supplemental declarations from the outlets show that, in most cases, the journalists who wrote the cited stories did not themselves hold permanent White House passes. In the remaining cases, he finds no support for the contention that having a pass was integral to the reporting. [2]

Exclusion first, a chance to respond later

In letters dated September 22, the administration offered the outlets an opportunity to respond by September 25 at 5 p.m. The cited opposition does not specify a time zone for that deadline. The Justice Department presents this opportunity to respond after exclusion as adequate protection.