Banned From the Press Pool? This Judge Says It’s Time for a Punishment Session!

The Associated Press (AP) is fighting back against the White House, asking a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to force the administration to restore its press access. The request comes after AP claims it was unfairly punished for refusing to use the term “Gulf of America” instead of the widely recognized “Gulf of Mexico.”

On Monday, AP filed an amended complaint, escalating the legal battle over press freedoms. The lawsuit comes in response to the Trump administration’s recent takeover of the White House press pool, a group of journalists responsible for covering presidential events. Traditionally, the White House Correspondents’ Association selects the pool members in collaboration with media organizations, but that process was upended last week.

The initial lawsuit, filed on February 21, named White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich, and chief of staff Susan Wiles as defendants. The amended complaint, expanding from 18 pages to 32, opens with a striking quote from an unnamed White House adviser who spoke to Axios on February 25:

“The AP and the White House Correspondents Association wanted to f–k around. Now it’s finding out time.”

AP argues that the administration’s actions violate both the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

“The White House ban of the AP violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the lawsuit states. “As the D.C. Circuit has made clear, journalists’ ‘first amendment interest’ in access to the White House, at events both large and small, ‘undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.’ The AP’s liberty interest in access is rooted in the First Amendment’s free speech and press guarantees and its related protections for newsgathering.”

Federal Judge Warns White House

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump-appointed judge, presided over the case’s first hearing last week. While he declined to issue an immediate restraining order in AP’s favor, he suggested the administration would struggle to justify its decision in court.

McFadden warned that legal precedent in Washington, D.C., was “uniformly unhelpful” to the government “when the White House has banned reporters in the past.” He also pointed out that blocking AP from press events appeared to be “pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination.” The judge hinted that the administration should reconsider its stance before the case progresses further.

“[T]he White House has instead retaliated against the AP further by abandoning the time-tested press pool system for ensuring that the public stays informed about the President of the United States and again barring the AP from the very same spaces — both small and large — that are at issue in this lawsuit,” the complaint states.

White House Defends Its Actions

The administration, however, is pushing back. Officials argue that AP is not entitled to “special media access to the President” and that press access is a discretionary decision.

As Law&Crime reported, the White House filed a 23-page opposition motion asserting that AP does not have an automatic right to attend Trump’s private events, including those held on Air Force One, in the Oval Office, or at Mar-a-Lago. Many other news outlets, officials pointed out, are also denied such access.

“Just as the President need not furnish a personal interview to all journalistic comers, the President has discretion to decide who will have special media access to exclusive events within the Oval Office,” the administration wrote. “The President has absolute discretion to give interviews to whomever he pleases — the First Amendment does not compel him to give a personal audience to any particular journalist. That same discretion extends to whom he allows into the Oval Office (his personal workspace), Air Force One (his personal plane), and Mar-a-Lago (his private residence). The President’s discretion over these small spaces simply does not implicate constitutional rights — for citizens, journalists, or news organizations alike.”

The legal battle is far from over. With the White House press pool’s independence at stake, AP’s lawsuit could set a precedent for how future administrations handle media access. For now, all eyes remain on Judge McFadden as the case unfolds.