STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
President Trump's administration is still arguing in court over his bid to block the work of news organizations whose coverage he doesn't like. Last month, Trump had the White House aides revoke the press passes of more than 70 journalists who work for CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Those outlets took him to court, saying he was pretty obviously trampling on their freedom of speech and of the press, and a judge temporarily forced the White House to give those passes back. Then the judge heard arguments yesterday about what to do next because the administration is persisting in its case. NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik is covering this. David, good morning.
DAVID FOLKENFLIK, BYLINE: Good morning, Steve.
INSKEEP: OK. Justice Department lawyers, paid by taxpayer dollars, went back into court to argue this case. What did they say?
FOLKENFLIK: So arguments made by Justice Department lawyer named Michael Velchik. And he stressed heavily the idea of national security, that these news outlets had essentially revealed things that could damage national security and that the administration had the right, essentially, to, once invoking that, strip these passes away and not really be questioned too much about it. Furthermore, he made an argument that the White House is a sacred space - president of the United States chooses who to invite in, whether they're dignitaries or regular citizens or journalists.
We certainly saw President Trump in mid-September, the 18th, start blasting CNN, MS NOW and Politico for being too negative on him. He says, hey, you know, they can do that, but that doesn't mean they get to do that from here at the White House. Boom, he makes that announcement on Truth Social. He does it publicly. And within a day or two, they're banned, their passes stripped.
INSKEEP: Very interesting argument to be made by this president that one should be - that the White House is sacred and one should be dignified there. But let's just set that aside.
FOLKENFLIK: Sure.
INSKEEP: The president is in charge. Why should he not be able to determine who comes in the door?
FOLKENFLIK: Well, you hinted at it in your introduction, of course. I mean, the first reason is the First Amendment, is that he has articulated his reason upfront that he doesn't like what they're doing. He doesn't like the way they're covering him. He thinks they're being too negative. He's pointing to their content, the very nature of their coverage. And actually, give the president a little credit. He doesn't have to invite any of them in. Having granted those press passes, according to a lot of legal precedents about this very issue, he can't revoke it if he doesn't like their coverage. That's a First Amendment issue.
Secondly, there's a question of due process. That's in the Fifth Amendment, which says you can't have something taken away from you from the government without some kind of notification and without a process to appeal it. And Ted Boutrous is this distinguished First Amendment lawyer. He's argued on behalf of NPR in the past. He's arguing on behalf of these news outlets now.
He says they're also making up reasons after the fact. He says the president is our best witness on this. You know, the Justice Department comes in here citing national security, but we know exactly why this is. And legal precedent suggests that it's a big enough deal to trample First and Fifth Amendment rights. Basically, if the government's shown to have done that, it loses because it's done what's called irreparable harm.
INSKEEP: OK. So what exactly is the judge being asked to rule on now?
FOLKENFLIK: So this judge is a Trump appointee, but he had issued a two-week restraining order. He's extended it for two days, and that basically has said, hey, hold off. You have to restore these passes while I figure all this out. These outlets are saying, stop this permanently. And ultimately, his question is, can these news organizations cover the president of the United States the way they think is appropriate, or is it dependent on his whim? And all of these arguments, if you look at the presidential right, the question of national security, the question of as they're arguing that the presidency is more important than the courts, speak to an all-encompassing vision of presidential power.
INSKEEP: NPR's David Folkenflik. Thanks.
FOLKENFLIK: You bet. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
