"My opinion is clear."
And that somehow validates your criticism of another's opinion?  It somehow validates your statement that transparency is not relevant?

"I typed it slowly this time."
In case you missed it, the concern is about transparency (which includes limited restriction of communications from public agencies) not about freedom of speech.  It seemed that your justification for Trump's action were based upon some notion of misrepresentation.  My question was not about freedom of speech which you irrelevantly (see how that works?) repeated but about some rational basis that grounds a belief that there may be some danger of misrepresentation.  If you conclude there was or will be without any causal facts then it would be safe to assume you are suffering from some irrational thinking.  Like say concluding on mere supposition that millions of non-citizens voted merely because they _could_ have.  That's Russell's teapot level foolishness.