Federal Judge Refuses to Quickly Reinstating AP’s Access to the Oval Office
The media outlet had its access restricted after it declined to adopt the name ‘Gulf of America.’
WASHINGTON—On February 24, a federal judge rejected The Associated Press’s urgent request to compel the White House to reinstate its press access to the Oval Office and Air Force One.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden concurred with the government, stating that AP was seeking privileged access to the White House and that an emergency intervention was unnecessary as the news organization was not enduring irreparable harm.
The outlet indicated that it would acknowledge the name change but would persist in using “Gulf of Mexico” as its style guide requires that it “must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences.” This stylebook is commonly utilized by numerous media organizations as a primary reference.
As per the plaintiffs, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt convened a meeting with AP’s chief White House correspondent, Zeke Miller, on February 11, where she communicated that the agency would be barred from the Oval Office press pool unless it started using the term “Gulf of America” in its reports.
The AP also claimed that this action violates its Fifth Amendment right to due process.
Related Stories
The lawsuit lists Leavitt, deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich, and chief of staff Susan Wiles as defendants.
The White House argued against AP’s request for a restraining order, contending that the news agency still has general press access, akin to other media outlets, and continues to report on the Trump administration.
The government asserted that AP holds no special entitlement to “unfettered access to the president’s exclusive events, especially when other media outlets do not possess that privilege.”
“Most journalists lack routine access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, or the president’s residence at Mar-a-Lago.”
Furthermore, it articulated that the president is not obligated to interact with or grant special access to journalists, referencing Sherrill v. Knight, which indicated it would be “unreasonable to suggest that because the president permits interviews with certain reputable journalists, he must extend this opportunity to all.”
The government also cited Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich, which noted that “reporters occasionally face access denial due to an official’s perception of their objectivity,” but concluded this does not constitute a constitutional breach.
This article will be updated.
