Court Weighs AP Exclusion From White House Coverage

17 Apr at 7:37 pm

2806 posts

Court Weighs AP Exclusion From White House Coverage \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Associated Press and the Trump administration faced off in court again Thursday in a legal dispute over press access to the president. AP claims it’s being unlawfully excluded from White House events due to editorial disagreements. A judge previously ruled in favor of AP, but enforcement remains contested.

Quick Looks

AP says Trump is still blocking its journalists from White House events.
A judge previously ruled that excluding AP for editorial reasons violates the Constitution.
Trump’s legal team says the president has full discretion over Oval Office access.
Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday; another hearing is scheduled for Friday.
AP seeks enforcement of a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden.
Dispute began after AP refused to rename the Gulf of Mexico in coverage.
Trump’s team claims a new rotation system justifies AP’s absence.
Legal debate centers on viewpoint discrimination and presidential media control.
Judges expressed concern about courts micromanaging presidential press access.
The final ruling could set major precedent for media rights.

Deep Look

In a legal battle that could redefine the boundaries of press freedom at the highest levels of U.S. government, the Associated Press (AP) and the Trump administration returned to court Thursday — and are due back Friday — to argue over the administration’s alleged exclusion of AP journalists from presidential events due to editorial disagreements.

The heart of the case involves whether President Donald Trump can bar AP reporters and photographers from accessing press events such as those in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and other major presidential venues.

The Legal Dispute Intensifies

Thursday’s hearing before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals focused on whether to uphold a lower court’s ruling last week. That decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, found that the Trump administration had violated the First Amendment by denying the AP access over differences in editorial viewpoints.

But since that ruling, AP alleges the White House has continued to block its journalists, effectively ignoring the court’s order. In response, the AP is asking Judge McFadden to enforce his decision during a follow-up hearing scheduled for Friday.

According to AP’s legal team, the dispute stems from President Trump’s dissatisfaction with the outlet’s editorial decision not to rename the Gulf of Mexico — a position that reportedly angered the president. Trump’s response, AP says, was to freeze the organization out of key press opportunities.

New Rotation System or Tactical Exclusion?

The Trump administration, through Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur, maintains that AP’s absence is not punitive but the result of a newly implemented press rotation system. According to McArthur, the system determines which outlets get access on any given day, and it simply “hasn’t been AP’s turn.”

However, AP attorney Charles Tobin countered that argument by highlighting a critical distinction: the White House cannot selectively exclude media outlets based on viewpoint when granting access to public events that are part of a pre-established pool system.

Tobin argued that while the president has every right to grant exclusive interviews to select journalists — like choosing Laura Ingraham of Fox News over Rachel Maddow of MSNBC — once public coverage is allowed through press pools, viewpoint-based discrimination becomes unconstitutional.

The Judges’ Delicate Balancing Act

The panel of appellate judges, including Trump appointee Gregory Katsas, appeared to wrestle with how far courts should go in deciding who gets to cover the president. Katsas raised the hypothetical of a president inviting 20 ideologically aligned reporters into the Oval Office.

“Isn’t that awfully close to what is happening here?” he asked.

Tobin responded that the key legal distinction lies in the act of excluding someone based on viewpoint, rather than inviting select individuals. “The president of the United States does not have discretion to violate the U.S. Constitution,” Tobin said.

But McArthur seized on that point to argue that if a president can include journalists based on viewpoint, the logic follows that he can exclude others for the same reason. “President Trump is under no obligation to run the press pool the way his predecessors did or even the way he did during his first term,” McArthur said.

What’s at Stake

This legal tug-of-war has sweeping implications for press freedom and executive power. If courts side with the Trump administration, future presidents may feel emboldened to curate media access to a greater degree — potentially undermining transparency and public accountability.

Conversely, a ruling in favor of AP would reinforce long-standing norms that safeguard media access regardless of political disagreements, ensuring that the executive branch cannot simply sideline critical voices.

For now, the AP remains locked out of events like Oval Office briefings and presidential travel aboard Air Force One — symbolic and practical arenas where access can shape public narratives and ensure journalistic scrutiny.

The coming days will be pivotal. If Judge McFadden decides to enforce his prior ruling, it could immediately restore AP’s access. If not, the appeals court may become the final battleground in a dispute that strikes at the heart of democratic values.