The New York Times Editorial Board on Monday published a scathing op-ed declaring that President Donald Trump's latest assault on the press amounts to a level of “oppression” so enormous that the nation's founders warned of it. The editorial responds to the president's weekend declaration that he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over what he called “purposefully negative stories” — a move the Times describes as the next chapter in “Trump's attempt to prevent the free flow of information in American society and his utter disregard of the law.” At stake is the White House press corps itself — the dedicated workspace and access arrangements through which correspondents cover the presidency day to day.

Trump tried to exclude journalists from the White House twice during his first term, and judges declared the move unconstitutional in both cases. That record has made the illegality of such an action clear, yet he has carried it out again — a step the Times frames as part of a second-term trend of “flagrantly breaking the law” that has also seen the administration ignore court orders halting deportations, launch war with Iran without congressional approval, and use federal power to “corruptly” enrich Trump and his allies, among other actions.

The board argues that a free press “enables citizens to assess reality in their own democracy,” “allows a flowering of different media voices,” and “holds powerful people to account.” For that reason, the Times notes, the founders were emphatic “that freedom of the press meant the freedom to say things that the government did not like.” The editorial invokes James Madison, who wrote: “To the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.” It adds that “The Bill of Rights devotes part of its first item — the First Amendment — to the idea, barring any laws that abridge 'the freedom of speech or of the press.'”

The earlier rulings against Trump's attempts to bar journalists never reached the constitutional question, resting instead on due process. “Judges said that a presidential administration was not obligated to create a press corps with dedicated White House space,” the Times explains. “Once it did, though, it must run a fair policy through which journalists can become part of the pool. The administration's banning of journalists was instead arbitrary.” Although the First Amendment was not at issue in those cases, the board writes, “Those principles are important here. If a president allowed access only to those reporters who are friendly to the administration, the nation would be poorer for it. The American system of government has endured for more than 250 years partly because our leaders are not autocrats who can censor criticism or monopolize information flow. They are subject to feedback, debate and critique.” That distinction frames what the new bans would be judged against: whether an administration must grant press access at all, but whether it applies whatever access rules it sets evenly rather than arbitrarily.

In the Times' view, “Trump's latest move is part of his wider effort to control the media.” The editorial catalogs that record: officials from his administration “have searched the home of a Washington Post reporter and served subpoenas to staff members of The New York Times.” Trump “has sued The Wall Street Journal and intimidated ABC News and Paramount into paying tributes to him,” while his Federal Communications Commission “has abused its regulatory power in an effort to shape coverage.” Taken together, the paper asserts, Trump has “impinged on press freedom in ways that no other modern president has” — and if the current bans stand, “he will be able to credibly threaten other organizations.”

The editorial closes by suggesting a possible motive for the president's action. “Trump is a master manipulator of public attention, and it is possible he has lashed out at the three organizations to distract from the policy failures — the war with Iran, tariffs, inflation and more — that have defined this term,” the board writes. “The attacks on the press nonetheless deserve attention. Mr. Trump is once again choosing 'error and oppression,' to use Madison's formulation, and rejecting 'reason and humanity.'” The immediate questions from here are whether the three organizations contest the bans in court and whether judges weigh the same due-process principles the board argues should govern press access.