A federal court has mandated the White House to reinstate The Associated Press’ (AP) comprehensive access to cover presidential events. U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden emphasized the First Amendment in his ruling, stating that the government cannot sanction the news agency due to disagreement with its content. This development is a significant victory for the AP amidst increasing tensions between the current administration and the media.
Judge McFadden, appointed by former President Donald Trump, determined that the administration’s actions constituted retaliation against the AP for not adhering to an executive order by renaming the Gulf of Mexico. In his ruling, McFadden noted, “Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints.” The decision has been temporarily put on hold for a week, allowing the administration an opportunity to respond or appeal the ruling.
The AP has been excluded from covering President Trump in key locations such as the Oval Office and Air Force One since February 11, experiencing intermittent access at other venues. Responding to the court’s decision, AP spokesperson Lauren Easton stated, “Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans.”
The White House’s approach toward media relations has been contentious, with attempts to curb funding for government-funded outlets and challenges directed at several major networks. In February, the AP filed a lawsuit against White House officials Karoline Leavitt, Susie Wiles, and Taylor Budowich, claiming violations of the organization’s free speech rights.
Judge McFadden clarified that his ruling does not grant the AP exclusive rights to coverage or specific access to presidential events, cautioning that the AP is not automatically entitled to prior privileges it previously held. However, the decision underscores that the AP cannot face discrimination compared to other similar news services.
Media organizations like Knight First Amendment Institute hailed the ruling as significant. The Institute’s deputy litigation director, Katie Fallow, commented, “The First Amendment means the White House can’t ban news outlets from covering the president simply because they don’t parrot his preferred language.”
While the reasons behind the administration’s exclusion of the AP have been openly acknowledged, the White House maintains that it alone should determine which journalists have access to the president. Since the conflict with AP began, the administration has also regulated the seating arrangements during briefings.
The AP’s editorial decisions are globally influential, guiding numerous writers and journalists. Despite the administration’s attempt to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, the AP has opted to retain traditional nomenclature, allowing for coverage of the name change in its reports.
AP Executive Editor Julie Pace highlighted in an op-ed that the lawsuit is less about the geographical nomenclature and more about free speech principles and the government’s attempts to influence communication. The exclusion from crucial events has affected AP’s coverage capabilities, as testified by its chief White House correspondent during a hearing in March.
McFadden’s ruling addressed the administration’s rationale directly, labeling it “brazen” and unconstitutional due to its infringement upon the principles of free speech. This case exemplifies broader challenges media outlets face under the current administration’s directives.