A federal court on Wednesday sustained President Trump’s decision to restrict the Associated Press (AP) from certain White House events and facilities.
CNN reported that the decision keeps the AP's reduced access in place until a further hearing is scheduled for March 20.
The initial ban was prompted earlier this month when AP did not comply with President Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who was appointed by President Trump in 2017, ruled against AP’s request for a temporary restraining order to lift the ban during a preliminary hearing.
McFadden's decision centered on the absence of compelling evidence of the ban causing "irreparable harm" to AP. He noted that AP continues to receive information through shared pool notes, although the organization insists the ban majorly impedes its reporting capabilities.
In response to the ban, the AP has initiated legal action against top Trump administration officials including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich. The lawsuit argues that the ban violates the First Amendment's free speech protections and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
The Department of Justice, defending the administration, argues that AP's ability to report has not been discernibly affected by the ban.
This position was echoed in court, where DOJ attorney Brian Hudak reiterated, “The president can choose who to speak with,” mirroring a statement also made by Charles Tobin, attorney for AP.
During the hearing, Judge McFadden expressed some skepticism about the ban’s legality and its potentially discriminatory nature. However, he concluded there was insufficient evidence of harm to AP to warrant emergency relief.
Many major news outlets have rallied behind the AP, with The New York Times, NBC, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Newsmax, and CNN supporting AP’s challenge by signing a joint letter that calls for lifting the ban.
The White House Correspondents’ Association also supported AP in a friend-of-the-court brief, emphasizing keeping the integrity of White House press coverage intact.
Comments on social media platform X from Ed Martin, interim U.S. attorney for Washington, DC, who lauded the legal defense of the president’s actions, labeled him dismissively as “Trump’s lawyers” by Democrats, showcasing the political tension surrounding the case.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung criticized the lawsuit, labeling it “frivolous and demented,” and accused AP of staging a “blatant PR stunt masquerading as a First Amendment case.”
Spokesperson for the Associated Press, Lauren Easton, expressed the organization's commitment to defending press freedom, stating, “We look forward to our next hearing on March 20 where we will continue to stand for the right of the press and the public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a fundamental American freedom.”
Leavitt responded to questions about the administration’s stance, asserting, “Asking the President of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.” This encapsulates the administration’s view that access to high-profile presidential settings is discretionary and not obligatory.
As the legal and public debates continue, the upcoming court date in March will be critical in determining whether the First Amendment’s protections will oversee the reinstatement of the AP’s broader access to White House events or uphold the president's authority to regulate access based on adherence to official directives.