The Trump administration argued in court that the president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security regarding the revocation of press passes.
Posted by The Briefing with Jen Psaki, Checked
- Sources
- 4 support3 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 85%
The Briefing with Jen PsakiSep 24, 2026
Court coverage from the September 23, 2026 hearing reports that Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik told the court, "The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security," and NPR confirms the DOJ stressed national security as grounds to strip the passes.
The host relays this claim without endorsing it. It counts as passed on, not against the post.
This claim is about the present, so it is judged as of the day it was checked.
What was said
… He asked them why the journalists in this case had not been given that kind of due process before their passes were revoked. The Trump administration's answer: well, here's a direct quote: "The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security." That is their new line, that this is all about national security. They claim that the three news organizations published classified information, and that is why they had to act immediately. …
The Briefing with Jen Psaki · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The Inquirer reports that DOJ lawyer Velchik told the court, "The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security," in the hearing over the White House press ban.[4]
Supports. NPR reports that Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik stressed national security, arguing the outlets had revealed things that could damage national security and that the administration could strip the passes once invoking that.[3]
Supports. Reuters and the Gazette report that the government asserted national security concerns to justify the ban and revocation of the press passes, though the judge found the record did not support that contention.[1][5]
Context. Later rulings by Judge Kelly on October 13-14 rejected the national security rationale as unsupported, but this does not undermine the fact that the administration made the argument in court on the claimed date.[2][6][7]
Sources
7 sources: 1 fact-checker, 1 primary, 3 tier 2, 2 not rated
- 1Judge blocks Trump's White House media ban, orders access to be restoredreuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 2Judge extends order blocking Trump from banning CNN, MS NOW, Politico reporters from White Housefirstamendment.mtsu.edu · primary source · cited for: context
- 3Judge weighs arguments by CNN and other media outlets ...npr.org · tier 2 · cited for: supports
- 4Judge hears arguments without immediately ruling in ...inquirer.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 5White House press ban lifted; tensions, legal battle aren’t over yetgazette.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 6Federal judge issues longer-term decision blocking ...nbcnews.com · tier 2 · cited for: context
- 7Judge says Trump press ban likely violates First Amendmentcnn.com · tier 2 · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- Three news organizations sued the Trump administration over its decision to ban journalists from the White House.True
- A federal judge found that the government's failure to devise, publicize, and utilize narrow and specific standards for the issuance or denial of press passes infringes on First Amendment rights.True
- A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order restoring Jim Acosta's press pass after he was banned by Donald Trump in 2018.True
- The appeals court ruled that the White House could not arbitrarily deny press passes in the case of Robert Sherill.True
- Donald Trump revoked Jim Acosta's press pass the day after the 2018 midterm election.True