|
The US Department of Justice defended the Trump administration's decision to restrict access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO to the White House, arguing that access to the White House grounds is a "privilege" and that the President has a compelling interest in enforcing professional standards and safeguarding national security information.
The DOJ, in a court filing on Tuesday, made the argument while opposing a request by the three news organisations for a temporary restraining order after their White House press credentials were revoked. "The White House is the home and workplace for the Nations Commander-in-Chief. Plaintiffs CNN, MSNOW, and Politico have long been granted privileged access to White House grounds. But the President concluded that they have failed to maintain basic minimum standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including by publishing sensitive or classified information," the DOJ said in its filing. The department argued that the President's actions should be upheld because of what it described as "compelling interest[s]" in enforcing minimum standards for journalists and protecting national security information. "At the very least, the Government may control reporters access to restricted presidential areas, such as the Oval Office, even for viewpoint-discriminatory reasons," the DOJ said. The government also argued that the restrictions were not retaliatory, saying that the same action would have been taken regardless of the outlets' criticism of Trump. "Second, the Presidents actions were not retaliatory because the Government would have taken the same action anyway, notwithstanding Plaintiffs speech criticizing the Presidentindeed, the President has not revoked access to other outlets that have equally criticized the President," the filing said. On the due process issue, the DOJ argued that the news organisations had received adequate notice and an opportunity to contest the President's factual findings. It also said the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm and that "both the public interest and balance of the equities favor the Government." "The Court should therefore deny Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order," the DOJ said. The legal dispute follows Trump's decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House. On September 21, Trump defended the move in a post on Truth Social, rejecting the suggestion that his administration was targeting the press. "The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America. It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!" Trump said in his post. Later the same day, following the filing of the lawsuit by the media organisations, Trump issued another statement defending the restrictions. "Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown sources, shouldnt be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World. It is called the Oval Office, and it should be treated with Decorum, Respect, and Dignity, not defiled by Third Rate Clowns, who purposefully distort, twist, and degrade with everything they write or publish. Virtually every story about me, or anything having to do with me, is negative, wrong and, in many cases, DANGEROUS for our Country!" Trump said. CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO filed a joint lawsuit challenging the administration's action, saying the government should not determine what the press reports or publishes. "This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes," the three organisations said in a joint statement. The organisations said their journalists' credentials had been revoked without notice or process and argued that the action threatened press freedom and independent journalism. "Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists credentials because it objected to our reporting," the organisations stated. "Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the publics right to independent journalism free from government interference," it added. The restrictions became visible when journalists from the three organisations were denied entry to the White House complex, with some having their press badges confiscated. The dispute also affects the White House television pool, a rotating arrangement involving five major networks that provides shared footage of presidential activities when the entire press corps cannot be present. The legal challenge now puts the administration's restrictions on White House media access at the centre of a dispute involving national security, presidential authority, due process and First Amendment protections. (ANI)
|
