President Donald Trump just scored a legal win that’s got the media buzzing. An appellate court ruled 2-1 on Friday to let him ban the Associated Press from the Oval Office and other restricted White House spaces. It’s a decision that’s raising eyebrows and questions about press freedom.
The Washington Examiner reported that the court’s ruling greenlights Trump’s move to exclude the AP after it refused to adopt his renamed “Gulf of America” in its stylebook. About two months before a lower court’s ruling, Trump had boldly rebranded the Gulf of Mexico.
The AP, sticking to its 400-year-old naming convention, didn’t budge, and the White House responded by slamming the door shut.
This appellate decision flips a lower court’s ruling that had called the ban unconstitutional. The AP had argued that excluding them was a First Amendment violation, a claim that initially found traction. But the higher court saw things differently, and now the White House is back in the driver’s seat.
The appellate court’s reasoning was crystal clear: restricted presidential spaces aren’t public forums for free speech.
“The White House retains discretion to determine, including based on viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted,” the court declared. That’s a polite way of saying the president can pick and choose his press pals.
The court also argued that without this ruling, the government would face “irreparable harm.” They claimed the lower court’s injunction messed with Trump’s control over his private workspaces. Sounds like the judges think the Oval Office is more like Trump’s personal man cave than a public square.
Let’s rewind to February, when this all kicked off. Trump, miffed that the AP wouldn’t play ball with his “Gulf of America” branding, barred them from tightly controlled media events. The AP’s stylebook, which notes the Gulf of Mexico’s centuries-old name, became the hill they chose to die on.
The AP didn’t take the ban lying down. They sued the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary, demanding an injunction to stop what they called viewpoint-based exclusion. It was a bold move, but one that initially paid off in the lower court.
District Judge Trevor McFadden had some choice words when he first ruled in the AP’s favor. “For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP’s access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the president,” he said. He saw the ban as a clear violation of constitutional principles.
McFadden wasn’t done. “The AP now sues the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary, seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Government from excluding it because of its viewpoint,” he added. The lower court’s ruling was a win for the press, but it didn’t last long.
After the lower court’s decision, AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton was all smiles. “Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation,” she said. That optimism didn’t age well, as the appellate court just pulled the rug out from under her.
Easton’s claim about press freedom sounds noble, but let’s be real: actions have consequences.
The AP knew refusing Trump’s naming edict would ruffle feathers, yet they doubled down. Now they’re learning that defiance comes with a price—exclusion from the White House inner circle.
The appellate court’s logic is hard to argue with from a conservative angle. If the president can’t control who gets access to his private workspaces, what’s next? Should every blogger with a laptop get a front-row seat in the Oval Office?
Trump’s “Gulf of America” push might seem like a petty hill to die on, but it’s his prerogative to set the tone. The AP’s refusal to even nod to his preference showed a lack of flexibility, and now they’re on the outside looking in. Sometimes, a little diplomacy goes a long way.
