Federal judge orders Trump White House to restore AP press access after months-long dispute over the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, but the administration continues to defy the court’s ruling.

At a Glance

• Judge Trevor N. McFadden ordered the White House to restore The Associated Press’s access, citing First Amendment violations
• The dispute centers on Trump’s insistence that media outlets refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”
• The AP has been barred from White House events since February for refusing to comply with the name change
• Despite the court ruling, AP journalists were still denied access to a recent Oval Office press event
• The order is paused until Sunday to allow the government time to file an emergency appeal

Constitutional Showdown Over Media Access

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore The Associated Press’s access to White House events after the news agency was barred for refusing to adopt the administration’s preferred naming of the “Gulf of America.”

U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled that the government violated the First Amendment by denying the AP access based on its editorial choices. The judge emphasized that while the White House isn’t required to grant interviews or admit all journalists to non-public spaces, it cannot discriminate against media outlets based on their viewpoints.

The ruling comes after the AP filed a lawsuit challenging its exclusion from the White House press pool, a position the news agency has held for over a century. Judge McFadden’s order requires the White House to “immediately rescind their viewpoint-based denial” of the AP’s access. However, the judge has paused implementation until Sunday to give the government time to file an emergency appeal, meaning the injunction will remain in effect until the case concludes or a higher court intervenes.

The Gulf Naming Dispute

At the heart of this conflict is the Trump administration’s February directive that all federal agencies and communications refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” The White House has since barred AP reporters from events due to the news agency’s refusal to adopt this nomenclature in its reporting. Administration officials have maintained that close coverage of the president is a privilege he controls, while the AP has stood firm on its editorial independence regarding geographic naming conventions.

“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.”

The judge clarified in his ruling that the AP isn’t seeking special treatment. “The government repeatedly characterizes The A.P.’s request as a demand for ‘extra special access.’ But that is not what The A.P. is asking for, and it is not what the court orders. All The A.P. wants, and all it gets, is a level playing field,” Judge McFadden stated. This clear distinction underscores that the issue is about equal access, not preferential treatment for the news agency.

Defiance Despite Court Order

Despite the judge’s ruling, the Trump administration appears to be continuing its restrictions against the AP. According to reports, AP journalists were denied access to an Oval Office press event following the court’s decision. “Our journalists were blocked from the Oval Office today. We expect the White House to restore AP’s participation in the pool as of today, as provided in the injunction order,” an AP spokesperson said, revealing the administration’s apparent disregard for the court’s directive.

This incident is part of what critics describe as a broader pattern of conflict between the Trump administration and U.S. news media. The administration has initiated lawsuits and investigations against other networks, creating tensions with journalists beyond just the AP. Meanwhile, the AP maintains that its stance isn’t merely about a geographic name but about defending foundational principles of free speech and press rights that affect all Americans.

Wider Implications

The dispute has raised concerns about press freedom and executive authority. Legal experts note that while presidents have historically enjoyed latitude in managing press relations, the Constitution places limits on how far those restrictions can go. The judge’s ruling reinforces that while the White House is not obligated to provide access to all journalists for every event, it cannot discriminate against news organizations based on disagreements over content or phrasing.

Critics of the administration point to this case as evidence of a concerning pattern of disregarding judicial authority, citing a previous instance where the administration reportedly ignored a Supreme Court ruling regarding deportation proceedings. Supporters maintain that the president has the right to determine how geographic features are named in official communications and that media outlets should respect those designations. The case will likely continue through the appeals process, potentially setting important precedents for press-government relations.

​