National Security

There are two words that every American should pay attention to right now:

National security.

Because increasingly, President Trump is using those two words to justify actions that otherwise face legal, constitutional or political obstacles.

And national security is serious business. Presidents need substantial authority to protect this country. There are moments when decisions have to be made quickly, intelligence has to remain secret and courts appropriately give the executive branch considerable latitude.

But here’s the question:

What happens when national security becomes the answer to everything?

A wind farm?

National security.

A White House ballroom?

National security.

Restricting journalists from the White House?

National security.

And now, apparently, a 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery?

National security.

Trump originally promoted this enormous arch as a monument connected to America’s 250th anniversary. Now, while the project faces legal challenges, he says it will also become what he calls a “military complex.”

According to the president, there could be drones there.

Snipers.

And ammunition.

That’s not speculation. That’s what the president announced.

And it creates some pretty obvious questions.

This arch has also been envisioned as a monumental public site in one of the most heavily traveled and symbolically important areas of Washington.

So are tourists going there?

Or are we storing ammunition there?

Are people visiting the monument?

Or are military drones launching from it?

Because those are two very different buildings.

And there’s another wrinkle.

The Federal Aviation Administration had already evaluated the 250-foot structure for aviation safety. But that evaluation didn’t contemplate military drone operations. The proposed site is near Reagan National Airport and major flight paths, which has prompted calls for another FAA safety review.

But the bigger story isn’t really the arch.

It’s the phrase “national security.”

Trump has also invoked national security in connection with his decision to exclude CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds.

Those news organizations have now sued.

And here’s where the constitutional issue gets serious.

The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee every journalist unlimited access to every room in the White House. Presidents have legitimate authority to control access to sensitive areas, and security concerns can absolutely justify restrictions.

But once the government provides press access, courts have placed limits on excluding journalists because the government dislikes their reporting or viewpoints.

That’s why this case matters.

Trump originally criticized these organizations for reporting what he called “fake news” and subsequently described them as a threat to national security.

The organizations argue that they’re being punished for constitutionally protected journalism.

The administration argues that the president retains significant authority over White House access and security.

Now a federal court gets to sort it out.

And that’s exactly how the American system is supposed to work.

The president exercises executive authority.

Congress establishes laws and controls spending.

Courts determine whether government actions comply with those laws and the Constitution.

None of those institutions possesses unlimited power.

And here’s why the words national security deserve particular attention.

Courts historically give presidents considerable deference when genuine national-security issues are involved. There’s a practical reason for that. Judges aren’t generals. They don’t receive the same intelligence briefings as presidents. And sometimes national-security decisions have to be made quickly.

But legal experts interviewed by Reuters are warning about a potential consequence of stretching that concept too far.

If virtually anything can become a national-security matter simply because the president declares it one, then the phrase starts functioning less like a description of a threat and more like a mechanism for expanding executive authority.

And there’s another danger.

Eventually courts may become more skeptical when presidents invoke national security — including when the threat is genuine.

That’s why this isn’t simply a Trump story.

It’s an institutional story.

Whatever authority one president establishes can potentially be used by the next president.

And the president after that.

That’s one of the most important things Americans should remember whenever presidential power expands.

Don’t ask yourself:

Do I like this president?

Ask yourself:

Would I be comfortable giving this power to a president I absolutely couldn’t stand?

That’s a much better constitutional test.

Maybe some of these projects really do contain legitimate security components. The White House obviously requires extraordinary security. Military installations require extraordinary security. Presidents unquestionably possess significant national-security authority.

But attaching the words national security to something doesn’t automatically settle the legal question.

The questions should remain remarkably simple:

What is the threat?

What specific authority allows the president to respond to it?

What limits has Congress established?

What constitutional rights are implicated?

And finally:

Can the government demonstrate its case when challenged in court?

That’s not anti-president.

That’s not pro-president.

That’s the American system.

National security is one of the most important responsibilities entrusted to a president.

And precisely because those powers are so important, Americans should pay attention when the definition begins expanding.

Because today’s argument isn’t simply about a windmill.

It isn’t simply about three news organizations.

And it certainly isn’t simply about a giant arch with drones and snipers.

It’s about something much bigger:

Where does presidential power end?

And in the United States, the answer was never supposed to be:

Wherever the president says it does.