What did Donald Trump do today?

He clarified his position that the government SHOULD be able to punish free speech.

Last week, Trump had reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico banned from the White House. His explicit justification was that he didn't like their coverage. When a reporter asked what form the ban would take, Trump had to ask her to clarify what ban she meant. After an aide mentioned Politico, he responded, "Oh, the ban on the free press?" 

Reporters from those outlets had their passes revoked shortly afterwards. They are now suing the White House to be reinstated, and they're likely to succeed. It's not unconstitutional for the government to limit press access, but it cannot be for viewpoint discrimination. In other words, the First Amendment forbids Trump or any other government official for punishing a news outlet simply because they don't like what that outlet reports.

In a late-night filing tonight, Trump seemed to go out of his way to reinforce that his motives were punitive and unconstitutional. The DOJ filed a declaration consisting of two links. One was to an MS NOW story reporting that Trump aides were discussing other historical landmarks his name could be added to, including Ford's Theater, the site of President Lincoln's assassination. 

That story provoked immediate mockery and derision of Trump online, prompting a hasty disavowal from Trump himself on social media—the second link in the DOJ filing.

In essence, Trump is arguing through the Department of Justice that the United States government should be allowed to punish news organizations that print things that the government has denied. Or, in other words, the government should be able to veto any story it doesn't like simply by issuing a denial, whether or not it's true.

It's worth noting that even incorrect reporting is covered by the First Amendment—but it's Trump's furious denial that gets the facts wrong. The MS NOW story doesn't say that Trump himself was consulted about the Ford's Theater renaming plan, or even that the idea was under serious consideration. It does say that Trump administration insiders know that flattering Trump with such plans is a good way of getting access to him. It also correctly notes that because the Department of the Interior owns the Ford's Theater site, it might be legally easier to put up signage with Trump's name on it.

The MS NOW story also cited some of the dozens of other attempts Trump has made to put his name and face on other things, ranging from the John F. Kennedy Center, to passports and National Park passes, to airports and train stations and NFL football stadiums, to the currently nonexistent $250 bill (among many other). Those have also generally provoked mockery and derision.

Why does this matter?

• It is incredibly plausible that Donald Trump would react positively to having his name put on the site of Lincoln's assassination, at least until he realized how people would react to it.
  
  
• The First Amendment probably wasn't written with actual temper tantrums in mind, but it still applies to presidential temper tantrums.