Todd Blanche cannot turn White House press access into a favor
By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta ·
Todd Blanche defended executive bans on news outlets by calling White House access a privilege, but the law forbids laundering viewpoint discrimination through the vocabulary of hospitality.
The privilege claim and the old playbook
US Attorney General Todd Blanche stood at the podium in Washington and offered a neat formula for executive impunity. He stated on the ABC News program This Week that access to the White House is a “privilege … not a right.” Blanche argued that the administration enacted the ban because the president was “sick and tired” of reporting he considers inaccurate. When questioned by CNN about barring reporters from traveling on Air Force One, Blanche told the network, “The president hasn’t denied access.” He added, “That’s not the right way to describe it.” He insisted that it is “common every time the president travels that he and his team decide which reporters get to travel with the president.”
This is not a new constitutional theory; it is the oldest evasion in the book of administrative control. Donald Trump revoked White House access from CNN, Politico, and MS NOW on September 18th. The administration justified the revocation by claiming national-security concerns or an attempt to root out fraud. In a brief, the Department of Justice asserted that access to the White House is a privilege, not a right. The White House sent a letter to Politico citing reporting on the Iran war as an example of compromising national security.
As reported by The New Yorker and The Guardian, the administration took these steps because Donald Trump stated there was no particular reason for the action. He cited only his belief that the outlets purposely write negative news to diminish Republicans. Trump stated in a Truth Social post that media outlets should not be able to constantly write or report fiction and lies when covering the president. Yet this apparatus of exclusion relies on the exact same logic deployed during the Jim Acosta case. The executive branch cannot launder viewpoint discrimination through the vocabulary of discretionary hospitality.
Due process and the judicial shortcut
The courts have spent decades examining this precise shell game. The machinery always breaks at the exact same seam. U.S. district judge Timothy J. Kelly imposed a fourteen-day suspension of the ban shortly after midnight on Thursday. He then issued a 12:30 p.m. deadline for compliance on Thursday morning to restore access. Judge Kelly wrote in his ruling that the record contained nothing suggesting the revocation of press passes was motivated by national security concerns. He noted that Trump focused instead on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of the plaintiffs' reporting.
As detailed in reports from The Guardian and MyJoyOnline, the legal confrontation deepened on Saturday. The White House barred CNN from traveling on Air Force One for a trip to Tennessee, even after the initial restraining order was entered.
The danger of Blanche's defense lies in its wholesale surrender of procedural regularity to executive whim. If the White House can rebrand a designated press area as a private club whenever the coverage turns sour, then the First Amendment becomes a conditional grace dispensed only to friendly scribes. Former President Bill Clinton understood this temptation well. He stated at the summit that there were lots of times he wanted to ban the White House press corps. He added that there is a reason we have a constitution because none of us are immune from being pissed off. Clinton added that he was glad he never did and glad he couldn't do it.
The durable rule against viewpoint discrimination
The strongest opposing case for the administration rests on the undisputed premise that the executive maintains broad operational control over physical spaces and transit assets like Air Force One. Defenders argue that a president cannot be forced to invite hostile interrogators into the Oval Office or onto government aircraft. They maintain that the internal workings of the executive branch require absolute discretion to function without judicial meddling.
That argument collapses under the weight of settled precedent regarding designated public forums. As District judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled in a prior credential dispute, under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists, it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. He added that the Constitution requires no less. A rule that permits the executive to punish critical reporting by revoking access only works until the opposition holds the keys to the building.
Public trust in institutions sits at an abysmal low. A Gallup survey recorded that only 28 percent of respondents express a great deal or fair amount of trust in newspapers, television channels, and radio outlets. A Reuters/Ipsos poll recorded President Trump’s overall public approval rating at 32 percent. The temptation to weaponize administrative gates is immense. But the machinery of government cannot be managed like a private estate. The administration must learn that the press room belongs to the public. No attorney general's gloss can turn a constitutional guarantee into a revocable favor.