President Trump's Legal Argument in Support of Excluding CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House

Trump Administration Defends Exclusion of CNN, MSNBC, and Politico from White House Grounds in Court Filing

The Trump administration submitted a legal memorandum opposing a temporary restraining order sought by CNN, MSNBC, and Politico over the revocation of their reporters’ access to White House grounds. The September 23, 2026, filing argues that the President’s decision rests on two asserted compelling interests: maintaining minimum standards of journalistic professionalism and protecting national security information.

The document acknowledges the D.C. Circuit’s 1977 decision in Sherrill v. Knight, which held that once White House press facilities are made available to bona fide journalists, access may not be denied arbitrarily or without compelling reasons. The administration states that Sherrill was wrongly decided and reserves the right to challenge it on appeal, while contending that its actions satisfy the standard even if the precedent remains in force.

The filing cites a more recent D.C. Circuit decision, AP v. Budowich (2025), for the proposition that the President may consider viewpoint when selecting journalists for interviews because demand exceeds available opportunities. It argues that the same reasoning should extend to access to White House grounds generally. According to the memorandum, limited capacity in the briefing room and West Wing facilities means these spaces should not be treated as nonpublic forums requiring viewpoint-neutral access. The administration notes that the AP decision itself reaffirmed Sherrill’s holding that the Brady Briefing Room, once opened to the press generally, cannot exclude journalists on the basis of viewpoint.

The memorandum asserts that the revocation decisions were not retaliatory. It states that the administration would have taken the same action regardless of the outlets’ criticism of the President and points out that other outlets that have criticized the administration have retained access.

On the professionalism standard, the filing contends that the White House may set qualifications for journalistic access. It maintains that reporters who publish classified or sensitive information, rely on anonymous sources without identifying them, or fail to seek comment from the White House before publication do not meet the requirements for bona fide journalists referenced in Sherrill. The administration states that the President’s letters to the outlets specified the standards, identified particular instances of conduct deemed deficient, and provided an opportunity for response and reconsideration.

Regarding national security, the memorandum asserts that the President possesses constitutional authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security. It claims that the named outlets have published reports about the White House complex under construction and other sensitive matters, and that such reporting requires government personnel to assess potential leaks and security implications. The filing references National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (2026) in connection with risks of foreign intelligence gathering. It argues that limiting access to organizations that do not publish such information serves a compelling governmental interest.

The motion is scheduled for hearing before Judge Timothy Kelly at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday. The administration’s position is presented as an opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for interim relief restoring the revoked credentials pending full litigation.

Eugene Volokh, posting the excerpt on Reason.com, separately expressed the view that the plaintiffs should prevail with respect to access to the main press briefing room under existing D.C. Circuit precedent, while noting the administration’s arguments on other White House spaces. The filing itself focuses on the broader grounds and the two asserted compelling interests.

The administration’s memorandum emphasizes that access to the White House remains a privilege rather than a right and that finite resources require selectivity. It distinguishes between the briefing room, where Sherrill’s constraints are acknowledged, and other areas of the complex where it contends viewpoint considerations remain permissible under AP v. Budowich. The document does not address the specific factual disputes over the accuracy or classification status of the reporting at issue, leaving those matters for further proceedings.

The case continues in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.