The Trump administration has decided not to make its visitor logs available to the public. A federal court ruled for the Obama administration in 2011 that visitor logs could remain secret, so Trump is within the law to keep these records out of sight. But is that the right thing to do?

Mike Dubke, the White House communications director, said the visitor logs were being withheld because of “the grave national security risks and privacy concerns of the hundreds of thousands of visitors annually.”

Prior to Obama, it was the norm to keep visitor logs secret. Obama made most visitor records public but did continue to omit names based on security and intelligence matters, as well as private donors, celebrities, and friends of his children.

Although a federal court ruled in 2011 that visitor logs could be kept secret, the Obama administration continued to provide them. Lawyers still exercised what they maintained was a right to omit some entries, including in cases of highly sensitive meetings, such as interviews for prospective Supreme Court candidates and those dealing with national security or intelligence matters. And the Obamas routinely left out the names of celebrities and top donors who came to personal events at the White House, such as star-studded birthday celebrations for the president and his wife, drawing criticism for doing so.

Trump has not said he will release any information except through FOIA. The information will only come into the public domain five years after the end of the Trump administration though it may be kept secret for another twelve years if the president chooses to do so.

A law suit has already been filed. Three watchdog groups filed suit this week:

Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, said the national security argument was “a falsehood” because the Obama-era policy already made such exceptions. His organization is among three that sued the government this week for visitor logs from the White House; the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.; and Trump Tower.

“Their action today shows they were just looking for a way to hide the logs,” Mr. Blanton said. “We went to court because we saw this coming.” ….

“This new secrecy policy undermines the rule of law and suggests this White House doesn’t want to be accountable to the American people,” said Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, the conservative-aligned group that sued in 2009 for the release of the visitor records.

Top ethics groups on Trump refusal to release visitor logs: We'll see you in court https://t.co/CtTxIqZAdH pic.twitter.com/vE2s64RCnR

— The Hill (@thehill) April 15, 2017

Another glaring ex of Pres Trump saying one thing & doing another. Why aren't White House visitor logs being made public? What's he hiding?

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 15, 2017

The Democrats have introduced a cleverly named bill regarding Trump’s nondisclosure:

Democrats have introduced the “Making Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness Act,” its Mar-a-Lago acronym a reference to Mr. Trump’s exclusive getaway, where he has made a habit of holding meetings with senior staff members and foreign leaders. The measure would require the release of visitor logs for the White House and any other location where the president conducts official business.

And in the manner of reducing redundancies, Trump has cancelled a contract worth $70,000 that provided access to this information:

The White House also said Friday that it was ending the contract for open.whitehouse.gov, the government disclosure site that contains the visitor log data as well as financial disclosure and salary information for White House employees.

The information is available elsewhere, the White House said, calling the site a waste of taxpayer money. Ending it would save $70,000 by 2020, it said.

Trump’s twitter history doesn’t really help his position either.

Why does Obama believe he shouldn't comply with record releases that his predecessors did of their own volition? Hiding something?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 30, 2012

I don’t see any harm in continuing at least a partially transparent process. While the press will always find fault with something, Trump can easily redact names by claiming a national security or other interest. I don’t know that there’s anything to gain by completely removing all records from public view and it certainly gives the media another stick with which to beat the administration. I say pick your battles, and while it may seem distasteful to play along, some fights only drain your energy, and not the swamp as promised.