A late-night legal filing from the Justice Department was viciously mocked Wednesday after it exposed the Trump administration’s argument to a federal judge for why President Donald Trump’s White House media ban should remain in place.
“DOJ's attempt to justify Trump's CNN et al. press ban will make you laugh, it'll make you cry,” wrote Ira Goldman, a former congressional lawyer and government policy adviser, in a social media post on X.
Trump banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House last week, and the three outlets subsequently sued the Trump administration for alleged First Amendment violations, requesting that U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly grant them a temporary restraining order and immediately block Trump’s ban.
As flagged by prominent international law scholar Ryan Goodman, the DOJ filed an opposition brief just “before midnight” on Tuesday, asking that Kelly deny the plaintiffs’ request. But buried within the brief were what some critics described as laughable legal arguments.
One example saw the Trump administration argue that Politico’s reporting on the Republican National Committee midterm convention earlier this month was factually incorrect.
“In September 2026, Politico Playbook relied on unnamed sources to paint the Republican midterm convention in Dallas as a disaster,” reads a letter sent from the White House to the banned media outlets that was included in the DOJ’s opposition brief as an exhibit. “Media reporting showed that the convention had over 100 million live stream views.”
Another argument from the Trump administration was that reporting on national security “diverts White House resources,” with the administration citing an August report from MS NOW on the United States’ “significantly depleted” supply of munitions amid its war against Iran. As noted by Goodman, MS NOW’s source for its reporting was a public document published in the Federal Register.
“They’re calling it the losingest losing argument of all time,” quipped Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration lawyer and senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.
Philip J. Velez, a New York immigration attorney, argued the Trump administration was seeking to overturn New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision that established strong protections for the press against libel suits from public officials.
Before midnight, DOJ told Judge Kelly the press ban of CNN, MSNow, Politico is based on their National Security reporting.
But examples are core First Amendment protected reporting.
First howler:
WH says it is b/c POLITICO reported GOP Convention was a political disaster. pic.twitter.com/X2yFUyoAA5
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) September 23, 2026
