There are certain sentences that sound perfectly reasonable until you stop and think about what they actually mean.
And here’s one of them:
“Access to the White House is a privilege — not a right.”
That’s the argument the Trump administration is making in federal court after President Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.
Now, technically, there’s some truth buried in that sentence.
The First Amendment doesn’t mean that every journalist in America gets to walk through the gates of the White House whenever they want.
Of course not.
The White House is one of the most secure places in America. There have always been credentials. There have always been security restrictions. There have always been limitations on where reporters can go.
But that’s not really the question here.
The question is:
Once the government creates a system allowing journalists into the White House, can the president decide which legitimate news organizations get access based upon what those organizations publish?
That’s a very different question.
President Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would no longer be allowed inside the White House. Their credentials were disabled, and reporters were turned away.
The president said these organizations publish fake news.
Now the Justice Department has gone into federal court with a more detailed argument.
The administration says the outlets violated standards of professionalism and decorum. It also says they published sensitive or classified information and that national security is involved.
And the administration says the outlets have an opportunity to contest the decision.
The news organizations tell a completely different story.
They say they were punished because the president doesn’t like their reporting.
And they argue that amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
So now we’ve arrived at a fascinating constitutional question.
Because presidents have always fought with the press.
Thomas Jefferson fought with newspapers.
Abraham Lincoln fought with newspapers.
Richard Nixon fought with newspapers.
Barack Obama fought with journalists over leaks.
Joe Biden complained about coverage.
Donald Trump certainly isn’t the first president who wished the press would treat him differently.
But the American system deliberately created tension between government and journalism.
The press isn’t supposed to work for the president.
And the president isn’t required to like the press.
That’s the whole point.
Now here’s where this case gets especially interesting.
The judge hearing it is Timothy Kelly.
And we’ve been here before.
In 2018, during Trump’s first administration, the White House revoked CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s credentials.
CNN sued.
And Judge Kelly ordered the White House to restore Acosta’s credential because the administration hadn’t provided adequate due process.
Same president.
Same network.
Same judge.
Different case.
And there is another precedent that cuts in a somewhat different direction.
During Trump’s second term, the Associated Press challenged restrictions on its access to certain presidential spaces. An appeals court ultimately allowed the White House greater discretion over highly restricted areas such as the Oval Office and Air Force One.
But that ruling also distinguished those limited-access spaces from areas generally open to credentialed journalists.
That’s important because CNN, MS NOW and Politico aren’t complaining about missing one seat on Air Force One.
They’ve been barred from the White House grounds.
And that’s why this case potentially matters far beyond Donald Trump, CNN or anybody’s opinion about these particular news organizations.
Imagine the principle being established here.
Whatever rule emerges doesn’t disappear when this president leaves office.
It becomes available to the next president.
And the president after that.
Maybe someday it’s a Democratic president saying Fox News has repeatedly published false information.
Maybe it’s a Republican president saying CNN has.
Maybe it’s another president targeting a newspaper you’ve never heard of.
That’s why constitutional rules can’t really be evaluated by asking:
“Do I like the person using this power?”
You have to ask:
“Would I be comfortable giving this power to a president I completely disagree with?”
That’s a much tougher test.
There’s another interesting wrinkle.
The White House initially described the problem broadly as fake or dishonest reporting.
The government’s court filing now identifies specific stories it says involved sensitive or classified national-security information.
Those allegations deserve examination too.
Journalists don’t automatically get immunity from generally applicable laws simply because they’re journalists.
And presidents unquestionably have legitimate responsibility for protecting national security.
So the courts have to sort through competing claims.
Was this genuinely a security decision?
Was it punishment for unfavorable reporting?
What procedures were required before credentials could be revoked?
And how much authority does the president have over access to the White House?
Those aren’t questions that should be answered by a Facebook argument.
They’re constitutional questions.
And now they’re sitting exactly where constitutional questions are supposed to end up:
In front of a federal judge.
Meanwhile, something else interesting happened.
The other major television networks responded by suspending their normal pooled television coverage of the president.
Think about that for a second.
These organizations compete viciously with each other.
They fight for viewers.
They fight for scoops.
They fight for advertising dollars.
But suddenly they’re confronting a question bigger than ratings:
Who decides which journalists get to cover the president?
Today Judge Timothy Kelly is considering the outlets’ request for immediate restoration of their White House access while the larger lawsuit proceeds.
And whatever happens, I think there’s a useful question for every American to consider.
Forget CNN.
Forget MS NOW.
Forget Politico.
Forget Donald Trump for a minute.
Imagine your favorite president.
Now imagine your least favorite president.
And give both of them exactly the same power.
Because that’s how constitutional precedent works.
The power you tolerate today doesn’t belong permanently to the person you trust.
Eventually, it belongs to somebody you don’t.
And that’s why this case isn’t ultimately about whether White House access is a “privilege.”
It’s about who gets to decide when that privilege is taken away — and under what rules.
And that question belongs to every one of us.
Join the Conversation