Trump Wins Appeal Limiting AP White House Access \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal appeals court granted President Trump a legal win over The Associated Press, backing the administration’s limits on AP journalists’ access to the Oval Office and Air Force One. The dispute stems from AP’s refusal to rename the Gulf of Mexico “Gulf of America.” The ruling raises key free-speech concerns and deepens tensions between the White House and the press.
Quick Looks
- Trump wins court stay in AP access case
- Dispute centers on AP’s refusal to rename Gulf
- Court majority says president controls Oval Office access
- Liberal judge warns of chilling press freedom
- Trump celebrates ruling as win against “fake news”
Deep Look
The rift between President Donald Trump and The Associated Press escalated on Friday after a federal appeals court sided with the administration in a case testing the boundaries of free speech, press access, and presidential power.
In a 2–1 decision, a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted Trump’s request to stay a lower court ruling that found the White House had likely engaged in viewpoint discrimination by restricting AP journalists’ access to presidential events. The legal dispute centers on the AP’s editorial decision to continue calling the body of water off the southeastern U.S. coast the “Gulf of Mexico,” despite Trump’s request to rebrand it as the “Gulf of America.”
Following that refusal, the Trump administration reduced AP’s access to the Oval Office and Air Force One beginning in February. For decades, AP reporters and photographers have been part of the limited-access White House press pool, a critical tool for ensuring media presence at events where space is too tight to accommodate all outlets.
Though the latest ruling is only about whether to pause enforcement of the earlier decision, the panel’s 55-page combined opinion delves deeply into constitutional law, particularly the First Amendment’s role in determining who the president can allow into traditionally restricted government spaces.
Writing for the majority, Trump-appointed judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao argued that the president holds broad discretion over access to his office, just as he does in choosing who to grant interviews. “The First Amendment does not control the president’s discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access,” Rao wrote, likening the decision to Trump’s choice of cable news interviews.
Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an Obama appointee, issued a forceful dissent. She warned the ruling could set a precedent for future administrations to systematically exclude journalists based on political alignment. “There’s nothing to stop the majority’s reasoning from being applied to the press corps as a whole,” she wrote. Pillard said that such exclusions could deter critical reporting and erode the watchdog function of the press. “Each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike.”
The decision arrives amid a volatile media environment where access to information is increasingly politicized. Trump responded swiftly on Truth Social, celebrating the ruling: “Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who is also a named defendant in the lawsuit, echoed the victory on X, declaring the court decision a win against “failing legacy media” and asserting, “It’s still the Gulf of America.”
AP expressed disappointment. A spokesperson stated the outlet is “reviewing options,” including requesting an expedited hearing on the full case. The organization, a 179-year-old global news service, said the issue goes beyond a naming dispute, raising concerns about the White House penalizing media outlets based on content.
The AP’s lawsuit asserts that the president’s action constitutes viewpoint discrimination—a legal concept rooted in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from favoring or punishing speech based on the speaker’s perspective. The original district court ruling found merit in that claim, prompting the Trump administration to appeal.
Meanwhile, access for AP journalists remains limited. While AP photographers are often included in rotating White House pool coverage, AP’s text reporters are now more frequently left out. The administration has increasingly favored conservative news outlets seen as more aligned with the president, expanding their access to briefings and events.
Interestingly, data suggests Trump has spoken to the press more frequently in his first 100 days than any president since Ronald Reagan. However, those interactions tend to be with small, handpicked groups of reporters—often in informal Oval Office sessions—rather than traditional press conferences. This selective access has sparked concerns about transparency and the diminishing role of traditional newsrooms in holding the administration accountable.
In her dissent, Pillard rejected the idea that the president suffers harm by allowing outlets with opposing viewpoints into restricted areas. She cautioned that the ruling could embolden future administrations—Republican or Democrat—to shape press coverage by selectively granting access to friendly outlets while sidelining critical voices.
The court’s majority disagreed. Rao wrote, “The Oval Office is the President’s office, over which he has absolute control and discretion to exclude the public or members of the press.”
Legal experts say the case may soon be heard on its full merits by a different panel of appellate judges. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for press freedom and White House-media relations during Trump’s second term.
Trump Wins Appeal
You must Register or Login to post a comment.