A federal judge has allowed the White House to continue barring The Associated Press (AP) from covering events with President Trump, amid a lawsuit claiming violations of the First and Fifth Amendments. The conflict arose after the AP criticized the administration’s preference to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. While Judge Trevor N. McFadden expressed concerns over potential viewpoint discrimination, he ruled that the AP’s situation did not warrant immediate intervention. The litigation continues, with the AP asserting that excluding its journalists from events infringes on press freedoms, emphasizing that such access should be equal for all media outlets.
On Monday, a federal judge ruled that the White House may continue to prevent The Associated Press from covering events involving President Trump, which perpetuates a legal battle concerning freedom of speech and press access—an issue that Mr. Trump has long questioned.
Last week, The Associated Press filed a lawsuit against several high-ranking officials in the Trump administration, claiming violations of the First and Fifth Amendments by excluding its reporters from press events. The White House began refusing the agency’s reporters this month, objecting to its editorial choice to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico rather than labeling it the Gulf of America.
Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, appointed by Mr. Trump, stated that The Associated Press’s situation was “not the type of dire situation” that necessitated emergency action against the White House, especially since the organization can still report the news via shared reports distributed to all media members in the White House Correspondents’ Association.
Although Judge McFadden expressed hesitation about imposing immediate action on the Trump administration, he demonstrated understanding of the arguments against the White House, noting that its actions seemed to aim at exerting pressure or punishment on the news organization over language choices, which he consistently referred to as “viewpoint discrimination.”
Upon reviewing his ruling, he cautioned the lawyer representing the Trump administration that legal precedents from past cases where the White House banned specific reporters were “uniformly unhelpful to the White House.” He called for an expedited hearing to weigh an injunction against the Trump administration, allowing both sides to present additional evidence.
“The White House should contemplate whether its actions are truly appropriate considering the existing case law,” he remarked.
The Associated Press sought a restraining order to prevent the White House from excluding its journalists from significant events where the president frequently makes news, such as signing executive orders in the Oval Office and speaking unscripted to the gathered journalists.
Charles D. Tobin, an attorney for the news organization, argued that the lawsuit essentially stemmed from Mr. Trump and his administration punishing one news outlet over others by excluding it from events that it covers on behalf of numerous newsrooms and broadcasters globally.
Mr. Tobin compared journalism to a jury trial, asserting that reporters and photographers should be able to observe the president just as jurors assess the credibility of a witness. He contended that while presidents frequently hold private events closed to the press—like fund-raisers—disallowing one outlet from attending otherwise public events constitutes an arbitrary loss of access.
“Once you allow people in, it shifts to a different constitutional analysis,” he stated.
The White House welcomed the judge’s decision.
“As we have maintained from the outset, asking the president questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal entitlement,” the statement read.
On Monday, when President Emmanuel Macron of France met with Mr. Trump at the White House, the French press corps selected a Paris-based reporter from The Associated Press to ask their first question during the joint news conference, and she was permitted to do so, as reported by the press pool, the rotating group of reporters who travel with the president and secure seats in otherwise inaccessible events at the White House.
Lawyers for the Trump administration contended that it is the president’s prerogative to decide which media members are permitted into restricted areas, including the Oval Office, Air Force One, and his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. They argued that the composition of the press pool, which typically includes just 13 individuals but always features The Associated Press and other wire services, can be modified at the president’s discretion without violating the Constitution.
During the Monday hearing, Brian P. Hudak, an attorney representing Trump officials, compared participation in the press pool to other “special access events,” like exclusive sit-down interviews with the president, which he claimed presidents aren’t obliged to provide to all organizations.
He argued that a president might have valid reasons for selecting specific outlets for particular contexts, such as assembling a group of financial journalists for an event concerning tariffs.
Mr. Hudak expressed belief that Mr. Trump would be entitled to go further, potentially banning all but a few cameramen from the White House. Nevertheless, he maintained that Mr. Trump’s administration had not inflicted harm on The Associated Press to that extent, referencing the agency’s ongoing access to the White House grounds and press briefings.
“If tomorrow the White House opts to eliminate the pool, I think they can do that,” he remarked, noting that journalists receive access to the White House at the president’s “grace and discretion.”
However, Judge McFadden seemed to disagree, indicating that while there may have been “numerous content-neutral reasons” for excluding The Associated Press’s reporters and photographers, it was evident that the administration sought to confront the organization over its content decisions.
Earlier that day, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, criticized The Associated Press on social media.
“As President Trump’s lawyers, we take pride in defending his presidency, and we remain vigilant in opposing entities like the AP that refuse to prioritize America,” Mr. Martin stated.
This extraordinary declaration from a federal prosecutor during litigation, suggesting that Justice Department attorneys represent the president rather than the government, heightened the tension as both sides prepared for ongoing legal battles.
“We look forward to our next hearing on March 20, where we will continue to advocate for the right of the press and the public to voice freely without government retaliation,” said Lauren Easton, a spokeswoman for The Associated Press, in a statement. “This is a fundamental American freedom.”
While lawyers presented their arguments on Monday, Zeke Miller, the chief White House correspondent for The Associated Press, joined his organization’s attorneys at the plaintiff’s table, with his back to a full courtroom. Eugene Daniels, a White House correspondent for Politico and president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, observed from the audience, alongside Julie Pace, the executive editor of the outlet.
In his arguments, Mr. Tobin told Judge McFadden that he was not asking the court to ascertain whether Mr. Trump’s intent was “geographical propaganda” or a “patriotic” rebranding of a body of water. Nevertheless, he asserted that punishing The Associated Press for its editorial decisions contradicted established legal norms.
“Whether for better or worse, the content of newspapers is determined by editors,” he remarked.
Devlin Barrett contributed reporting.