The White House Objects to Its Own Anonymous Source

The White House has found a troubling example of anonymous sourcing: an anonymous source supplied by the White House.

In its September 22 letter revoking Politico’s press passes, the administration cited a story quoting a “senior administration official” about negotiations with Iran. Politico executive editor Julia Marsh subsequently told the court that the story came from an authorized White House briefing, where reporters were instructed to use that anonymous attribution.

Follow our instructions. Now explain your misconduct.

That detail sits inside a much larger fight over President Donald Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico. On October 8, Judge Timothy Kelly extended temporary protection for their White House access while considering a longer-lasting injunction. A decision was expected by October 13.

This is not a final victory for the outlets. Kelly’s September 24 order found they were likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment due-process claim. It did not decide the First Amendment dispute. The distinction matters, even when the administration makes it tempting to skip straight to the punchline.

The government has a defense, and it deserves to be stated accurately. Justice Department lawyers argue that the outlets violated minimum professional standards and published classified or sensitive information. They say protecting national security justifies restricting access, and that letters offering the outlets a chance to respond provided adequate process.

Actual security risks are not imaginary. The question is whether these restrictions address one, rather than merely dressing a complaint about coverage in more impressive clothes.

In his initial order, Kelly found no factual support in the record for the claim that taking away these passes would protect national security. Some disputed reporting was months or years old. The government did not dispute that the reporters received no notice or opportunity to be heard before their passes were revoked.

Urgent enough to skip the hearing. Apparently not urgent enough to act when the stories appeared.

Trump, meanwhile, supplied a considerably less technical explanation. Asked by TIME what prompted the ban, he said, “Well, it’s just bad story after bad story.” He also said he could handle bad stories and alleged that most were fake. That is a complaint about accuracy and treatment, not evidence that a particular reporter’s badge threatens the country.

Restored credentials have not settled every access dispute. CNN and Politico have still been excluded from Air Force One trips; the administration argues that traveling with the president is a privilege, not a right. A pass through the gate and a place in the press pool are not the same thing.

None of this requires believing every story those outlets publish. Bad reporting can be challenged with documents, corrections and answers. That would have the useful side effect of informing somebody.

Instead, the public gets a fight over which journalists may enter, under standards announced after the punishment, with an administration-arranged briefing appearing among the offenses.

The White House is welcome to demand better journalism. It could start by remembering which quotes it supplied.

The White House Objects to Its Own Anonymous Source

Sources