In Washington, a federal judge who previously instructed the Trump administration to stop excluding The Associated Press from presidential activities chose not to impose immediate measures on White House officials to ensure compliance. This decision marks a gradual development in an ongoing conflict between the international news agency and government representatives concerning media access.
The conflict is pivotal due to its significant implications for free speech as protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. The issue arose when the government restricted AP’s access for refusing to change its references to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who recently ruled in favor of the AP to end the exclusion, expressed uncertainty over whether President Donald Trump was defying this order, as claimed by the AP. “We cannot yet make a definitive judgment either way,” McFadden remarked from the bench, indicating his reluctance to over-regulate White House operations.
AP’s legal representative, Charles Tobin, declined to comment on the judge’s ruling, and there was no immediate response from the White House.
The development follows the introduction of a modified press policy at the White House. For the past two months, AP journalists and photographers have been barred from their usual positions in smaller venues such as the Oval Office and Air Force One. The AP contends that this restriction violates its First Amendment rights, arguing that the government is retaliating for an editorial choice—an argument that McFadden accepted.
In reaction, the White House introduced a new press protocol allowing AP and other news services some access to events they customarily covered. Since McFadden’s ruling, an AP photographer gained entry to the Oval Office after previously being blocked, with a promise that an AP reporter would join the upcoming press pool on Trump’s weekend golf outing.
In court, Tobin criticized the White House’s new policy as a tactic to undermine the AP’s influence, suggesting it as a “snub” to both the agency and the court. Meanwhile, Jane Lyons, representing the Trump administration, argued that efforts were made to adhere to the court’s decision and noted, “It is much too early… to declare it problematic.”
Judge McFadden acknowledged concerns over the administration’s early actions post-order, contemplating whether they exhibited “malicious compliance.” Nevertheless, McFadden, a Trump appointee, stated the need to assume the administration’s good faith unless proven otherwise.
The judge dismissed the AP’s argument that giving the president sole authority over reporter access is unconstitutional. Though public interest in journalism access debates is generally limited, the AP has framed it as a larger free speech issue.
Globally influential, the AP’s editorial decisions, including terminology, impact the work of journalists and writers worldwide through its esteemed style guide. The AP intends to continue using “Gulf of Mexico,” adhering to historical naming conventions despite Trump’s preferred renaming as “Gulf of America.”
This matter could require months to resolve fully through the courts, with the AP recently presenting its case to a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Trump administration has indicated plans to challenge McFadden’s original ruling.