Theodore Boutrous, representing the media outlets, argued on Wednesday that the White House had manufactured a national security argument as a way to retaliate against news organisations perceived as critical of Trump.
“They’re literally arguing that reporters shouldn’t scrutinise national security issues and decisions by the government,” he said.
He noted that Trump never cited national security when he ordered the ban in a Truth Social post last Friday. The justification was added later on, he told the judge.
Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the US Department of Justice, opened his argument in court by asserting that “access to the White House is a privilege, not a right”.
He claimed that the news organisations had published information that could harm national security, which Boutrous disputed.
“The viewpoint discrimination is probably the clearest case in history. I mean, the president said, ‘I don’t like what you’re publishing. I’m taking away your press pass based on that,'” he told the hearing.
“They are using national security as this talisman — these magic words,” Boutrous said. “It is just a pretextual, post hoc effort to justify just a blatant violation of due process.”
He asked the judge to rule quickly, due to “urgent matters” that require news coverage, including the Iran war, the UN General Assembly taking place in New York City, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s US visit, and the debate over AI regulation.
In court filings ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, the justice department filed a series of “reporting incidents” they said justified the ban.
The filing cites a number of stories about construction at the White House – including about a security bunker and the building of a new ballroom, as well as a report on an internal information leak investigation.
The three media organisations have argued that the ban breaches their rights under the First Amendment, which forbids the government from “abridging” the freedom of the press.
In a joint statement confirming legal action against the government, they said: “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting.
“Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
Forty-nine media organisations – including CBS News, The New York Times and Fox News – filed a legal brief in support of the lawsuit against the White House.
Major TV networks have withdrawn from a media-sharing arrangement of video and images of the president, known as the pool, in protest over the ban.
Shortly after, the White House launched its own streaming channel, Trump TV, which operates a 24/7 feed of clips of the president.
