Federal judge Trevor McFadden has declined to extend his order requiring the White House to restore Associated Press access to certain areas, potentially shifting the landscape of media transparency in government operations.

At a Glance

• The dispute began when the Trump administration blocked AP access after the news agency refused to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”
• Judge McFadden previously ordered the White House to restore AP’s access but has now declined to extend that order
• The new White House press policy removes guaranteed spots for wire services like AP but includes them in a rotating pool
• AP argues the policy violates First Amendment rights, while the administration maintains press access is a privilege
• The judge warned of “serious consequences” if the AP receives “second class treatment” under the new system

Origins of the Media Access Dispute

The conflict between the Associated Press and the Trump administration began earlier this year when the White House banned AP journalists from covering presidential events. The unprecedented restriction came after the news agency refused to adopt President Trump’s preferred term “Gulf of America” instead of the historically recognized Gulf of Mexico. The administration’s stance was unambiguous, with President Trump directly addressing the situation.

“We’re going to keep them out until such time as they agree that it’s the Gulf of America,” Trump stated in February, establishing a clear condition for the restoration of AP’s access privileges.

In response, the AP filed a lawsuit against three White House officials, claiming the ban constituted viewpoint discrimination and violated their First Amendment rights. The case quickly became a flashpoint in the ongoing tension between media organizations seeking transparency and a presidential administration asserting control over press access protocols.

Legal Developments and Judicial Decisions

The legal battle escalated when Judge Trevor McFadden initially ordered the Trump administration to restore the AP’s access to White House areas available to other press pool members. This temporary order declared that excluding the AP violated First Amendment protections and instructed immediate compliance. Despite this ruling, the AP claimed the White House continued to deny them full access, arguing officials were defying the court’s directive.

“We will continue to stand for the right of the press and the public to speak freely without government retaliation,” said Lauren Easton, AP spokesperson, in a statement defending the organization’s position.

The situation took another turn when Judge McFadden declined to extend enforcement of his original order. During proceedings, he indicated potential support for the administration’s new press policy, which removes guaranteed spots for wire services while including them in the rotating daily press pool. McFadden specifically stated he didn’t intend to “micromanage” White House press operations, suggesting judicial restraint in matters of executive branch media relations.

https://t.co/2M5LwXkrDw

— 4th Estate News (@IVthestate) February 16, 2025

Constitutional Arguments and Administrative Response

The case has sparked significant debate about the constitutional boundaries between government authority and press freedom. The AP’s legal team has argued that the administration’s position represents clear viewpoint discrimination, an assertion that found some judicial sympathy. Gabe Rottman, representing press freedom interests, noted the judge “had a number of questions throughout the hearing that got to the fact that this is clearly viewpoint discrimination.”

The Justice Department has countered by asserting there is no constitutional protection for “special media access” to the White House. Administration officials have consistently maintained that press access to the president is a privilege, not a constitutionally protected right. This argument forms the cornerstone of their defense against claims of First Amendment violations.

While AP photographers have been allowed back into the photo pool, the organization reports that their print reporters have not been selected for pool rotation under the new system. The AP has characterized the policy change as a “spit in the court’s eye,” claiming it significantly diminishes their opportunities to cover presidential activities effectively.

Broader Implications for Media Access

The ongoing dispute has attracted attention from across the media spectrum. The White House Correspondents’ Association, including conservative outlets like Fox News and Newsmax, has supported restoring the AP’s access, demonstrating cross-ideological concern about potential precedents in government-media relations. Judge McFadden acknowledged these concerns, warning there would be “serious consequences” if evidence emerged of “second class treatment” toward the AP.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is now involved, considering whether to suspend McFadden’s initial order while the White House appeals. This multi-tiered legal battle highlights the complex constitutional questions surrounding press access to government institutions and officials. The outcome may establish important precedents for future administrations’ relationships with media organizations, particularly during periods of tension or disagreement.