Trump's Administration vs. Press Freedom: AP sues over access ban
Alona Yadav | Feb 22, 2025, 13:29 IST
( Image credit : AP )
The Associated Press has filed a federal lawsuit against three senior Trump administration officials after being banned from presidential events. The ban stemmed from the AP's continued use of the term 'Gulf of Mexico' instead of President Trump's preferred 'Gulf of America.' The AP claims the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments.
In a significant development that underscores the ongoing tension between the press and the White House, the Associated Press has filed a federal lawsuit against three senior Trump administration officials. The legal action comes in response to the administration's decision to ban AP reporters from presidential events, including access to the Oval Office and Air Force One.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington on Friday, February 21, 2025, names White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich as defendants. The AP contends that the ban violates both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
At the heart of the dispute lies an unprecedented nomenclature controversy. The White House implemented the ban on February 11 after the AP continued to use the term "Gulf of Mexico" in its reporting, despite President Trump's decree renaming it the "Gulf of America." The AP, maintaining its editorial independence and considering its global audience, has chosen to acknowledge the presidential decree while continuing to use the internationally recognized name.
The repercussions of this ban extend far beyond the AP newsroom. As a key member of the White House press pool, the AP's exclusion affects thousands of news outlets worldwide that rely on its coverage. The organization's legal filing emphasizes this impact, noting that "when the AP is denied access, the thousands of global news outlets that republish the AP's news reports, and the billions of people that rely on its reporting, also are denied access."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking at CPAC, expressed confidence in the administration's position, stating, "We feel we are in the right in this position and I said in my first briefing at the podium: We are going to ensure that truth and accuracy is present at that White House every single day."
The case has been assigned to Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, and the AP is seeking an emergency hearing along with a court order to declare the ban unconstitutional. The AP's lawyers argue that "the Constitution does not allow the government to control speech. Allowing such government control and retaliation to stand is a threat to every American's freedom."
This legal battle differs from CNN's 2018 lawsuit against the White House, which focused on the revocation of correspondent Jim Acosta's press credentials. The current case specifically addresses the right to attend White House press events when they are open to other pool members. Legal experts note that this presents a novel challenge, as there are no Supreme Court opinions or lower court decisions that specifically establish such a right.
The Trump administration has yet to respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit. As this case unfolds, it promises to set important precedents regarding press freedom, government oversight, and the delicate balance between presidential authority and media independence in American democracy.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington on Friday, February 21, 2025, names White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich as defendants. The AP contends that the ban violates both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
At the heart of the dispute lies an unprecedented nomenclature controversy. The White House implemented the ban on February 11 after the AP continued to use the term "Gulf of Mexico" in its reporting, despite President Trump's decree renaming it the "Gulf of America." The AP, maintaining its editorial independence and considering its global audience, has chosen to acknowledge the presidential decree while continuing to use the internationally recognized name.
The repercussions of this ban extend far beyond the AP newsroom. As a key member of the White House press pool, the AP's exclusion affects thousands of news outlets worldwide that rely on its coverage. The organization's legal filing emphasizes this impact, noting that "when the AP is denied access, the thousands of global news outlets that republish the AP's news reports, and the billions of people that rely on its reporting, also are denied access."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking at CPAC, expressed confidence in the administration's position, stating, "We feel we are in the right in this position and I said in my first briefing at the podium: We are going to ensure that truth and accuracy is present at that White House every single day."
The case has been assigned to Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, and the AP is seeking an emergency hearing along with a court order to declare the ban unconstitutional. The AP's lawyers argue that "the Constitution does not allow the government to control speech. Allowing such government control and retaliation to stand is a threat to every American's freedom."
This legal battle differs from CNN's 2018 lawsuit against the White House, which focused on the revocation of correspondent Jim Acosta's press credentials. The current case specifically addresses the right to attend White House press events when they are open to other pool members. Legal experts note that this presents a novel challenge, as there are no Supreme Court opinions or lower court decisions that specifically establish such a right.
The Trump administration has yet to respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit. As this case unfolds, it promises to set important precedents regarding press freedom, government oversight, and the delicate balance between presidential authority and media independence in American democracy.