A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from excluding The Associated Press (AP) from White House events over the organization’s refusal to adopt a politically driven renaming of a well-known geographic landmark. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, affirms that government retaliation based on journalistic viewpoint violates the First Amendment, even in restricted settings like the Oval Office.
The ruling centers on a February 11, 2025 executive order signed by Trump entitled “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness”, which unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” The move was met with broad public opposition, with 55 percent of Americans rejecting the name change and only 24 percent expressing support, according to polling cited in the lawsuit.
The AP, adhering to its globally respected editorial standards and international audience, continued referring to the body of water as the Gulf of Mexico in its reporting. In response, the White House barred the organization from covering events involving the president, including those in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and within the White House press pool. The AP filed suit on February 21, alleging that the exclusion constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
In his ruling, Judge McFadden issued a clear rebuke of the administration’s actions.
“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,” McFadden wrote. “The Constitution requires no less.”
McFadden noted that the White House had “brazenly” admitted the reason for excluding the AP was its refusal to adopt the administration’s preferred terminology. “The government offers no other plausible explanation for its treatment of the AP,” McFadden wrote. “The Constitution forbids viewpoint discrimination, even in a nonpublic forum like the Oval Office.”
Although the judge did not immediately enforce the order—delaying its effect by five days to allow the administration time to respond or appeal—it marks a significant legal victory for press freedom advocates. The ruling blocks the White House, at least temporarily, from continuing to bar AP journalists from presidential coverage based on their editorial choices.
“While the AP does not have a constitutional right to enter the Oval Office, it does have a right to not be excluded because of its viewpoint,” McFadden added in his decision. He made clear that the ruling does not grant the AP special status but insists it cannot be treated differently than other wire services.
“The Court does not order the government to grant the AP permanent access to the Oval Office, the East Room or any other media event,” he wrote. “It does not bestow special treatment upon the AP. Indeed, the AP is not necessarily entitled to the ‘first in line every time’ permanent press pool access it enjoyed under the (White House Correspondents Association). But it cannot be treated worse than its peer wire service either.”
The Associated Press celebrated the ruling.
“We are gratified by the court’s decision,” said AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton. “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 in the U.S. Constitution.”
Legal experts emphasized the broader implications of the decision. “This is an important decision,” said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “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.”
Floyd Abrams, a longtime free speech attorney, underscored the historical significance of the ruling: “What a splendid and well—deserved First Amendment triumph. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be pleased and relieved.”
Despite the injunction, enforcement of McFadden’s order had not yet taken effect when an AP reporter and photographer were turned away from joining a White House motorcade to cover Trump’s appearance before the National Republican Congressional Committee. The administration has not indicated whether it will appeal the ruling or comply voluntarily.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, named in the lawsuit along with chief of staff Susie Wiles and deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich, did not respond to media requests for comment.
AP’s lawsuit highlighted the practical and economic consequences of the ban. The organization brought its White House correspondent and photographer to testify before McFadden on March 27, explaining how the restrictions impeded real-time reporting and cost the organization a $150,000 advertising contract due to delayed coverage. AP’s attorney Charles Tobin argued that exclusion from coverage directly harmed the outlet’s reputation and business interests.
In court, the administration argued that AP could still access briefings and livestreams and suggested that the organization’s presence at daily press briefings was sufficient. But McFadden dismissed that argument, stating the government’s rationale was explicitly based on the AP’s editorial stance.
The judge also addressed the broader context of the Trump administration’s contentious relationship with the media. Since returning to office, Trump has expanded legal and political efforts against journalists and news outlets. The Federal Communications Commission has pending lawsuits against ABC, CBS, and NBC News. The administration has threatened funding cuts to public broadcasters like NPR and PBS and has moved to defund Voice of America.
Trump himself has disparaged the AP, calling it a group of “radical left lunatics,” and openly admitted to barring its access because of its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”
“For anyone who thinks The Associated Press’ lawsuit against President Trump’s White House is about the name of a body of water, think bigger,” wrote AP executive editor Julie Pace in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “It’s really about whether the government can control what you say.”
Press freedom groups also welcomed the decision. “The First Amendment protects news outlets from government interference in editorial decisions, as the court has reaffirmed,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director for Reporters Without Borders USA. “The Trump administration’s attempts to undermine the Constitution failed this time, but they continue to pose a threat to press freedom and prevent the media from doing their job: covering the government fully and fairly.”
COMMENTS