Court Rules Against White House in AP Access Ban \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge ruled that the White House must restore full access to The Associated Press, finding that the government cannot retaliate against a news outlet based on its speech. The decision marks a significant win for press freedom. The AP had been blocked from key presidential coverage since February.
Quick Looks:
- U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled the White House violated the First Amendment.
- The AP was denied access after refusing to use the term “Gulf of America.”
- The judge emphasized the government cannot discriminate based on viewpoint.
- The injunction does not grant the AP special or permanent access.
- The White House has one week to respond before the order takes effect.
- AP’s exclusion led to delayed reporting and financial loss.
- Trump has repeatedly targeted the AP as politically biased.
- The ruling reinforces longstanding legal protections for press freedom.
Deep Look
Federal Judge Orders White House to Restore AP Access, Citing First Amendment Violations
In a sweeping affirmation of press freedom, a federal judge on Tuesday ordered the White House to fully reinstate The Associated Press’ access to cover President Donald Trump’s events, after months of exclusion tied to the AP’s refusal to adopt the administration’s preferred terminology.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee, granted a preliminary injunction blocking the White House from continuing to deny the AP access to pool coverage, citing clear First Amendment violations.
“If the Government opens its doors to some journalists… it cannot then shut those doors to others because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote. “The Constitution requires no less.”
A Legal Win for the Free Press
The ruling is a significant victory for the AP, which filed suit on February 21 after being denied access to cover Oval Office events, East Room appearances, and presidential travel aboard Air Force One — standard privileges granted to major wire services.
At the heart of the dispute is the AP’s refusal to follow an executive order by Trump that sought to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” The AP maintained its traditional usage, sparking Trump’s ire and prompting the administration to exclude the outlet from White House press pools.
The AP argued that the ban was retaliation for its editorial decisions — a position Judge McFadden agreed with, stating that the exclusion “offers no plausible explanation” beyond viewpoint discrimination.
Judge Rebukes White House for Retaliation
While McFadden did not order permanent reinstatement of AP’s press pool privileges, he made clear that viewpoint-based exclusions are unconstitutional, even in nonpublic forums such as the Oval Office.
“The AP is not necessarily entitled to be first in line every time,” McFadden wrote, “but it cannot be treated worse than its peer wire services either.”
The ruling was delayed for one week to give the White House time to appeal. However, within hours of the decision, an AP reporter and photographer were reportedly still turned away from a motorcade covering Trump’s appearance before the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Background: Gulf of Mexico Renaming Sparks Conflict
The AP’s refusal to use “Gulf of America” in its coverage — instead sticking to the historic and internationally recognized name, Gulf of Mexico — drew criticism from Trump, who later admitted the exclusion was intentional.
In court testimony, Trump officials argued they have discretion over who attends events, but McFadden rejected that as a blanket justification when viewpoint discrimination is evident.
Julie Pace, AP’s Executive Editor, emphasized the broader implications in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:
“This lawsuit is not just about a body of water. It’s about whether the U.S. government can control what you say.”
AP Testifies to Damage and Delay
During a March 27 hearing, AP’s White House correspondent and lead photographer testified that the exclusion had delayed transmission of breaking news and images, harming their ability to serve global audiences in real time — a core part of the AP’s mission.
Attorney Charles Tobin said the AP even lost a $150,000 advertising contract due to concerns over reduced White House access.
While government lawyers argued the AP could access livestreams or use material from other outlets, the judge noted that this workaround diminishes the AP’s editorial independence and competitiveness.
Trump’s Broader Press Crackdown
The dispute with the AP is one facet of a broader Trump-era strategy to reshape the media landscape. Since returning to office, the Trump administration has:
- Pressured the FCC to open investigations into ABC, CBS, and NBC.
- Proposed defunding public broadcasters like PBS and NPR.
- Threatened Voice of America, accusing it of pro-immigrant bias.
- Limited seating and participation in White House press briefings.
At rallies and online, Trump has regularly referred to the AP and other outlets as “radical left lunatics” and “enemies of the people.”
Expert Reaction
Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, praised the decision:
“The First Amendment means the White House can’t ban news outlets from covering the president just because they don’t echo his words. This is an important moment for press freedom.”
McFadden’s ruling in Associated Press v. Budowich et al. is now expected to be a landmark case in defining the limits of executive discretion over press access — especially during contentious political climates.
What Comes Next?
The Biden administration, while no longer pursuing federal charges against Paxton in a separate legal context, must now decide whether to appeal the ruling or comply and restore AP’s full access.
For now, the judge’s message is clear: Free speech protections apply even when the president disagrees.
Court Rules Against Court Rules Against Court Rules Against
You must Register or Login to post a comment.