NYT Argued (Just a Few Years Ago) That POTUS Can Declass Using Any Procedure He Wants

When Trump was president he made a public statement about the operations in Syria (which he inherited from Obama). The NYT took him to court saying they wanted all documents relating to the operation released under FOIA. Their argument was that since Trump spoke about the operation, his public revelation automatically meant the whole operation was fully declassified.

Trump argued that just because he spoke about something doesn't mean he has to declassify everything relating to it. The left has latched onto this claiming Trump is being hypocritical. Back then he said he can't just verbally declassify stuff but now he claims he can. But they are wrong - this is not what Trump's team was arguing.

While I am not a lawyer, I did read the actual ruling by the court. Trump didn't argue at all that he can't declass something verbally - he merely argued that he didn't want the documents in question declassed. Just because he spoke about an operation (in general terms) doesn't mean he now is bound by law to release all details of it. That was basically the crux of his argument. The point is Trump didn't want the docs declassified and had no intention of declassifying them (either by "procedure" or not). The circuit court agreed with Trump and he won the case.

But Trump winning the case is not the point of this post. The point is that the NYT themselves argued in court that a president can simply "speak" something declassified without following any procedure at all (yes, they argued a president doesn't need to follow any procedure). I don't read the NYT, but I doubt this is their position now.