Judge Rejects Immediate Restoration of AP’s White House Access but Urges Reconsideration
A federal judge on Monday declined to immediately reinstate The Associated Press’ access to White House events, ruling that the news organization had not demonstrated irreparable harm. However, he urged the Trump administration to reconsider its decision, warning that legal precedent was “uniformly unhelpful” to the White House.
Key Points from the Ruling
🔹 Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled against an immediate restraining order but left room for further legal review.
🔹 The judge warned that barring AP could be considered viewpoint discrimination.
🔹 The case will continue, with the next hearing set for March 20.
“It seems pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination,” – Judge McFadden to government attorney Brian Hudak
With no immediate ruling, the White House remains free to deny AP access to the Oval Office and other presidential events.
The White House’s Stance
The Trump administration defended its two-week-old ban on AP, arguing that:
Press access is a privilege, not a right
AP reporters still have some access to White House news events
The president has the discretion to decide who he speaks with
To reinforce its stance, the White House installed monitors in the briefing room displaying the phrases “Gulf of America“ and “Victory.”
“As we have said from the beginning, asking the President of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.”
Was AP Targeted for Viewpoint Discrimination?
The dispute began when the AP refused to adopt Trump’s executive order renaming the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ as the ‘Gulf of America.’
AP insisted on using “Gulf of Mexico“ in its reporting, citing its global audience and commitment to journalistic accuracy. However, it also acknowledged Trump’s order in coverage.
🔹 AP attorney Charles Tobin argued that barring AP was unconstitutional:
■ Related News
“The issue is that once the president allows the press pool in, he can’t say, ‘I don’t like you. You’re fake news. Get out.’”
🔹 Government attorney Brian Hudak defended the move:
“That’s not just special access. That’s extra-special access.”
Judge McFadden pressed both sides on the role of the White House Correspondents’ Association in determining press pool access. He questioned whether the government was bound by its decisions but later noted that banning only AP seemed discriminatory.
AP Fights Back: A Legal Battle Over Press Freedom
On Friday, AP filed a lawsuit against three top Trump officials:
Susan Wiles – White House Chief of Staff
Taylor Budowich – Deputy Chief of Staff
Karoline Leavitt – White House Press Secretary
The AP’s lawsuit calls the White House’s move a “targeted attack” on press freedom, arguing that it violates the First Amendment.
“We look forward to our next hearing on March 20, where we will continue to stand for the right of the press and the public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a fundamental American freedom.” – AP Spokesperson Lauren Easton
Dozens of news organizations, including Fox News and Newsmax, have signed a letter urging the White House to reverse its policy.
Trump’s History of Press Battles
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has clashed with the media:
In 2018, CNN’s Jim Acosta had his White House credentials revoked before a Trump-appointed judge ruled in his favor.
Trump has repeatedly criticized AP, calling its journalists “radical left lunatics.”
The administration believes AP’s widely used Stylebook influences reporting nationwide and wants it to reflect “Gulf of America” for American audiences.
Trump’s executive order on geographical renaming follows similar actions, such as his push to rename Denali back to Mount McKinley—a change AP recognized, as the mountain is entirely within the U.S.
What’s Next?
March 20 – The next court hearing
AP continues reporting from outside restricted areas
Legal experts anticipate a long legal battle over press freedom vs. executive discretion
This case will be a major test of the First Amendment and how much power the president has over media access.
