The Associated Press and the Trump administration were at odds on Monday, November 24, 2025, in a case presented before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The issue at hand is whether the president can restrict journalists from attending events in limited-space venues due to disagreements over their news reporting.
President Trump limited the AP’s access to smaller venues such as the Oval Office and Air Force One. This decision followed the AP’s refusal to adopt Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in its Stylebook. Trump stated that the AP’s access would remain curbed until it revised its style guidelines on this issue.
A panel of three judges heard arguments from both parties, but no immediate ruling was made. The panel included judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by Trump, who had previously ruled against the AP in a different case. The panel also included Robert Wilkins, appointed by former President Barack Obama.
Charles Tobin, representing the AP, argued that the administration’s actions are discriminatory based on the organization’s freedom of speech, especially when journalists are invited on a pool basis. “The First Amendment does not stop at the Oval Office door,” Tobin stated during the hearing.
The case originated when a lower court found that Trump had retaliated improperly against the AP over the naming issue. However, the appeals court halted parts of that ruling, leaving the decision on the AP’s access to the White House’s discretion.
The core disagreement is over control of access to “pool” events, where space is limited, and not all journalists can attend. The Trump administration insists it has the right to select pool participants, similar to the president’s discretion in granting interviews. The administration argues that if the AP’s business model relies on guaranteed access, it is not the government’s responsibility.
Yaakov Roth, representing the Trump administration, questioned the limits on presidential invitation authority, pointing out that no one suggests the president must invite equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats to the White House Christmas party.
Judge Rao expressed doubt about a rule that could address the AP’s concerns without an injunction against the president. Such injunctions are rare, as judicial actions typically target executive staff rather than the president directly. She also questioned the differentiation between pool events and individual journalist access.
Judge Wilkins challenged the administration’s stance by suggesting it could deny White House tour access based on social media criticisms, asking, “Woe to the public.”
Since the dispute began, the White House has occasionally granted AP writers access to limited-space events, while AP photographers have had more frequent access. Tobin argued that the new policy has negatively impacted the AP’s operations, noting their consistent inclusion in pool events over the years.
Julie Pace, AP’s executive editor, emphasized in an op-ed that the access issue goes beyond the organization. She stressed that press freedom is about public access to government information, with journalists acting on behalf of citizens. Pace cautioned that government control over journalistic access and content challenges the First Amendment.
The case has garnered broad media support, with nearly four dozen press organizations filing briefs supporting the AP. News outlets such as ProPublica, Fox News Channel, The New York Times, and The Washington Post are part of this effort.
The naming controversy of the Gulf of Mexico has largely subsided. According to a Nieman Lab study last month, the term Gulf of America is mostly used by conservative outlets and trade publications. The AP’s Stylebook suggests acknowledging Trump’s renaming while using the traditional name.
This case tests presidential authority over media access with potential implications for the First Amendment. Pool arrangements are necessary due to space limitations in venues like the Oval Office and Air Force One, affecting information flow to the public.
The AP provides content to thousands of news outlets worldwide, making access restrictions significant for global news dissemination. The appeal’s outcome could set a precedent for future administrations’ interactions with news organizations and define the limits of presidential discretion over press access.
The case remains under appeal with the decision pending.