The Associated Press Is Suing the White House Over Press Access—What to Know

The AP filed the lawsuit in response to the White House’s restricting its press access after it declined to adopt the name ‘Gulf of America.’

A logo for The Associated Press at its headquarters in New York City on April 26, 2016. Hiro Komae/AP Photo

WASHINGTON—The Associated Press (AP) news wire service is suing several members of President Donald Trump’s press team after being removed from an exclusive group of journalists with close access to the president.

For decades, the AP was a permanent part of the White House press pool, a 13-member group of print and photo journalists who are allowed in areas with security and space restrictions, like the Oval Office and Air Force One.

In February, the news outlet was removed from the press pool after it decided to continue using the Gulf of Mexico in its influential style guide after Trump issued an order renaming the body of water to the “Gulf of America.”

The AP said it needs to use both names as it is an international publication, and the rest of the world still refers to the area as the Gulf of Mexico.

The AP also alleges that its access to other White House events—generally open to credentialed journalists of other media outlets—has also been limited. 

The AP decision was part of a broader set of significant changes instituted by the White House concerning the media, such as adding seats in the briefing room for independent media.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also announced on Feb. 25 that Trump’s press team will determine membership in the pool, instead of the White House Correspondents’ Association, and will grant access to different outlets on a rotating basis.

The AP’s suit, filed on Feb. 21, alleges that Trump’s team violated its First Amendment rights by retaliating after it refused to use “Gulf of America.” It said that the White House’s actions were an unconstitutional attempt to control speech.

The lawsuit also alleges that AP’s Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated because it was given no notice before it was kicked out, and no way to appeal against the decision.

The case is ongoing but the AP encountered an initial loss on Feb. 24 when U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden declined the outlet’s emergency bid to be reinstated into the White House press pool.

The government pushed back on AP’s claims at that hearing, saying the group had no inherent right to “special access” in its news coverage, and cited the case Sherrill v. Knight, where the White House denied a press pass to a journalist who had been arrested for assault.

In that case, the court said it would “be unreasonable to suggest that because the president allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give this opportunity to all.”

The government also cited the Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich case, which found that officials didn’t violate the Constitution by denying access to reporters they saw as “unobjective.”

Notably, the AP also appealed to the Sherrill case, because the D.C. circuit court ruled that the journalist’s due process rights had been violated since officials had not given a justification for denying him a press pass.

Legal Experts Weigh In

Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center, believes the case is a slam dunk in the AP’s favor.

“It should be a short one,” he wrote in an op-ed. “The First Amendment says that the government can’t use its power to punish us for what we’ve said or written.”

Neama Rahmani, former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, also told The Epoch Times he thought AP would ultimately win the legal battle despite McFadden’s refusal to grant an emergency order.

“Obviously, this is unprecedented. It’s never really happened before, but given the fact that it was pretty clear that [AP is] being excluded because they’re refusing to use the specific name, it seems like a free speech issue to me.”

John Shu, a legal scholar and commentator who served in the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, told The Epoch Times that an AP victory isn’t so certain.

He said its legacy as one of the founding members of the White House Press pool “doesn’t make any difference.”

“If you remember, from JFK through Clinton, the person who opened and closed the press conference was Helen Thomas from UPI—United Press International—and she did that for decades only because of tradition and inertia.”

Shu said he thought the White House could eliminate “permanent” members of the pool altogether, and continue to decide its membership on a weekly, rotating, or trip-by-trip basis.

He also questioned whether the AP would have pushed back against the name change if it had come from a Democrat or liberal president.

Possible Implications

Frank Sesno, a former AP reporter and director of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, said every administration brings its own “spin” and perspective to the White House.

“Every administration wants the most favorable coverage they can get. That’s not new,” he told The Epoch Times.

Sesno also said he was concerned that kicking out the AP would set a precedent of only allowing “friendly” press close access to the president.

“We cannot go down that road; that starts to turn a very dangerous corner,” he said.

Rahmani highlighted a trend that became apparent during the 2024 election: Many Americans no longer trust or rely on legacy media as much and have turned to alternatives like X, or influential podcasters such as Joe Rogan, for their news.

He thinks Trump’s dust-up with the AP will only further that trend because its coverage will be less exclusive.

Ultimately, Rahmani didn’t think the case would have broad implications but said that an AP victory could have a chilling effect on Trump’s press team.

“If the AP wins, I think the press secretary will be more hesitant to take steps like this,” he said.