Trump lawyers busted saying 'very different things' than his team: expert

U.S. President Donald Trump listens to remarks during a swearing-in ceremony for Mehmet Oz in the Oval Office in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 18, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

President Donald Trump's press ban is already facing choppy legal waters in court, with a top CNN legal analyst explaining why the president and his lawyers are now saying "very different things."

On Tuesday night, the Justice Department submitted a new filing in the lawsuit brought against the administration by MS NOW, CNN and Politico, after Trump banned the outlets from entering the White House. In it, agency attempted to argue that the ban was, among other reasons, done for national security purposes. Trump and his officials have frequently cited "national security" as a reason for his desired projects, including the ballroom and the D.C. arch, with some critics saying he treats like "magic words" that help him get his way.

“The President determined that Plaintiffs have failed to maintain minimum professional journalistic standards by publishing classified and national security information,” the DOJ filing read.

Reacting to this development during a Wednesday appearance on CNN, legal expert Elie Honig explained that these attempted justifications are unlikely to hold up in court, given how often Trump has said the quiet part out loud.

"Donald Trump'slegal position has shifteddramatically overnight," Honig said. "And nowwe are seeing Trump's lawyerssay very different things than Donald Trump and [Vice President] JD Vance andothers have spent the last five or six days saying so. There are twomain issues in this case. Thefirst is the First Amendmentissue... The trump administration'sposition now is that the ban isbecause of national securityconcerns. The problem with that is that the president himselfhas said repeatedly over thelast five or six days that the reasonfor the ban is unfavorablecoverage, negative coverage, 'Idon't like the tenor or thetype of coverage.' Very differentstories."

Legal experts across the political spectrum, from Fox News's Jonathan Turley to MS NOW's Andrew Weissmann, have made similar observations about the Trump administration's case, noting that it is firmly established in American law that press outlets cannot be selectively barred from the White House for viewpoint reasons.

"The second issue is due process," Honig continued. "CNN, MS NOW and Politico point out that they were given no notice of the ban, no opportunity to contest it. Well, now, what Trump's lawyers are saying is we are going to give them, and I quote from the brief, 'post-deprivation process,' meaning we've taken away the due process rights first, and then we're going to give them some process that they just invented, starting now. That's sort of the antithesis of what due process is supposed to be. It's supposed to happen before you take something away. So we are now seeing a notable divide and split between what Trump has been saying publicly for the last several days and what his lawyers are now saying in their late-night brief."

From Your Site Articles