A Press Pass Is Not a Presidential Loyalty Card -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

On September 18, President Donald Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House, accusing them of publishing “fake news.” The next day, their journalists were denied entry and their press credentials were disabled or confiscated. The three organizations sued in federal court in Washington, arguing that the administration was punishing them for their reporting and denying them due process.

On September 24, US District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered their access restored through a temporary restraining order. His immediate ground was consequential: the abrupt revocation of their hard passes likely violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. He was also skeptical, on the record before him, that the administration’s later national security justification explained or was advanced by the ban. That is a provisional ruling, not a final judgment on the outlets’ First Amendment claims.

The sequence deserves scrutiny. The outlets’ coverage was attacked first by the president; then security was invoked by the government. When officials can, after the fact, use displeasure with a report as the basis for an alleged security rationale, press accreditation becomes a mechanism by which journalists may only ask questions of the president that he is happy to answer. Sensers mash perhaps by control room entrances governs genuine risk. That it should have to identify those risks with evidence, and apply readily clear rules rather than treating criticism as grounds for redundancy.

A new study reveals this cost goes beyond three newsrooms. White House reporters retrieve information for those who cannot enter the White House or interrogate its residents. It is precisely because the accounts of journalists are unwelcome that this method of allowing fewer and fewer to operate ultimately narrows the public’s horizon in relation to its own government. There were network reaction to CNN being banned from the pool for the White House, which led to others skipping pool coverage in a show of collective solidarity an example of how one ban can disrupt collaborative journalism.

It also revealed a second test: compliance. Despite Kelly ruling, reporters were denied entry on Thursday morning but later allowed in. Even if restored in the abstract, a right of access can still be blocked at a gate. The EPA must immediately order the Secret Service to identify and prepare written instructions for the administration; reissue every credential that has been canceled; note which credentials have been backed or unused since 2017 and advise the Court when this process has been completed.

The longer remedy is a public accreditation policy: written, specific reasons for any suspension; prompt notice and an opportunity to respond; an independent route to review; and narrowly drawn emergency measures for demonstrable security threats. The court should examine the First Amendment claim in full, including whether the outlets were singled out for their viewpoint. News organizations, meanwhile, should preserve a press pool that refuses to replace an excluded colleague merely because the government dislikes that colleague’s reporting.

A president can challenge journalism, rebut errors and refuse an interview. He cannot be allowed to make favorable coverage the price of entering the White House.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia