The Associated Press Sues White House Over Press Access: Key Details Explained

March 11, 2025 TruthUSA

The Associated Press (AP) initiated the lawsuit following the White House’s restrictions on its press access after the agency opted not to adopt the term ‘Gulf of America.’

WASHINGTON—The Associated Press (AP) news agency has filed a lawsuit against several members of President Donald Trump’s press team after being excluded from an exclusive group of journalists granted close access to the president.

For many years, the AP was a constant presence in the White House press pool, which comprises a 13-member group of print and photo journalists permitted into secure areas with space limitations, such as the Oval Office and Air Force One.

In February, the outlet was removed from the press pool after it chose to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its widely used style guide, despite Trump’s directive to rename the body of water as the “Gulf of America.”

The AP stated that it is necessary to use both names as it is an international organization, and the global community still identifies the area as the Gulf of Mexico.

Additionally, the AP claims that its access to various White House events, which are typically open to credentialed journalists from other outlets, has also been restricted.

The decision from the AP is part of a broader series of notable changes introduced by the White House regarding media access, including the addition of seats in the briefing room for independent media.

On February 25, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that membership in the press pool would be determined by Trump’s team instead of the White House Correspondents’ Association, with access to various outlets provided on a rotating basis.

The AP’s lawsuit, filed on February 21, claims that Trump’s team infringed upon its First Amendment rights through retaliation for the agency’s refusal to use “Gulf of America.” It further argues that these actions represent an unconstitutional attempt to control speech.

The lawsuit also contends that the AP’s Fifth Amendment due process rights were breached, as the agency received no prior notice of its exclusion and had no means to appeal the decision.

Although the case is currently ongoing, the AP faced an initial setback on February 24 when U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden declined to grant the outlet’s emergency request to be reinstated into the White House press pool.

During that hearing, the government countered the AP’s assertions, arguing that the organization had no inherent right to “special access” in its news coverage, referencing the Sherrill v. Knight case, wherein the White House denied a press pass to a journalist who had faced assault charges.

In that instance, the court determined it would be “unreasonable to suggest that because the president permits interviews with certain bona fide journalists, he must extend such opportunities to all.”

The government also referenced the Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich case, which ruled that officials did not violate the Constitution by denying access to journalists deemed “unobjective.”

Interestingly, the AP drew on the Sherrill case as well, since the D.C. circuit court found that the journalist’s due process rights were violated, as officials did not provide a rationale for the denial of his press pass.

Legal Experts Weigh In

Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center, believes the AP’s case is strongly positioned in its favor.

“It should be a straightforward resolution,” he noted in an opinion piece. “The First Amendment states that the government cannot leverage its power to punish us for our expressions or writings.”

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, also expressed to The Epoch Times that he believes AP will ultimately prevail in the legal skirmish despite McFadden’s refusal to issue an emergency order.

“Clearly, this situation is unprecedented. It hasn’t happened before, but it appears to be evident that [AP is] facing exclusion due to its reluctance to adopt the specific name, which suggests a free speech concern,” he remarked.

John Shu, a legal scholar and commentator who served in the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, indicated to The Epoch Times that the outcome may not favor the AP as expected.

He asserted that the agency’s history as one of the original members of the White House Press Pool “holds no weight.”

“If you recall, from JFK to Clinton, the individual responsible for commencing and concluding press conferences was Helen Thomas from UPI—United Press International—and she maintained that role for decades simply because of tradition and inertia,” he elaborated.

Shu speculated that the White House could entirely remove “permanent” pool members and continue determining membership on a weekly, rotating, or trip-by-trip basis.

He further questioned whether the AP would have contested the name change had it been proposed by a Democrat or liberal president.

Possible Implications

Frank Sesno, a former AP reporter and director of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, pointed out that each administration brings its own specific “spin” and narrative to the White House.

“Each administration seeks to secure the most favorable coverage possible. That is nothing new,” he conveyed to The Epoch Times.

Sesno also expressed concerns that the AP’s ousting could establish a precedent for allowing only “friendly” press access close to the president.

“We cannot tread down that path; it begins to tread on a very dangerous line,” he cautioned.

Rahmani emphasized a trend that emerged during the 2024 election cycle, noting that many Americans have grown less trusting and reliant on legacy media, turning instead to alternative platforms like X or prominent podcasters such as Joe Rogan for their news consumption.

He believes that the conflict between Trump and the AP will further amplify that trend as the coverage becomes less exclusive.

Ultimately, Rahmani believes that although the case may not yield widespread implications, a victory for the AP could deter Trump’s press team from future actions of this nature.

“If the AP prevails, I think the press secretary will approach such actions with greater caution in the future,” he suggested.

Source link