Does the White House Blocking AP From Press Events Violate the First Amendment?

Latest developments (last updated June 11, 2025):

• On June 6, 2025, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court said that the White House can reinstate its ban of The Associated Press from the Oval Office, Air Force One, Mar-a-Lago and other similar “restricted” spaces while the lawsuit by the AP is being argued in court.

• The judges ruled differently with regard to the East Room because it does not have the same space limitations as those other areas.

• Two of the three judges said that the ban is likely to later be ruled constitutional.
• The AP has asked the full appeals court to review the ruling issued by the three-judge panel.
• In April 2025, the White House released a policy that restricts access for all wire services, not just the AP.

Has the White House violated the First Amendment by barring Associated Press journalists from press events because the AP has made the editorial decision not to adopt the phrase Gulf of America?

AP reporters were denied entrance starting on February 11, 2025, to White House events attended by other journalists. A day later, administration officials said that in their view, entrance to the Oval Office and other such press events at the executive mansion is at the discretion of the White House and that journalists have no legal right to entry.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the White House is barring the AP from accessing these events because the news outlet is spreading “lies,” by not using President Donald Trump’s new name for the former Gulf of Mexico. For its part, the news agency says it “will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen” because the AP is a global news organization, and Gulf of America is not globally recognized. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names has officially changed the name of the Gulf.

Julie Pace, the executive editor of the AP, in a February letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, said barring the reporters was “plainly intended to punish the AP for the content of its speech. It is among the most basic tenets for the First Amendment that government cannot retaliate against the public or the press for what they say. This is viewpoint discrimination based on a news organization’s editorial choices and a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

On April 8, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Trevor N. McFadden agreed, writing, "The AP seeks restored eligibility for admission to the press pool and limited-access press events, untainted by an impermissible viewpoint-based exclusion. That is all the Court orders today: For the Government to put the AP on an equal playing field as similarly situated outlets, despite the AP’s use of disfavored terminology."

McFadden temporarily ordered the White House to restore AP journalists’ access to presidential events at the same level as it does news staff of other news organizations. Shortly after, the White House announced a new policy that restricts access for all wire services, not just the AP.

However, on June 6, 2025, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court said that the White House can reinstate its ban of the AP from the Oval Office, Air Force One, Mar-a-Lago and other such “restricted” spaces while the matter is being argued in court, reversing McFadden’s April order. The court said that the AP could not be banned from the East Room, though, which is a larger space in which more reporters are generally present. The appeals court also said the ban is likely to later be ruled constitutional in an ongoing lawsuit filed by the AP, again disagreeing with the lower court.

The AP has asked the full appeals court to review this ruling issued by a three-judge panel.

Do journalists have a First Amendment-based right to attend White House press events?

There are no U.S. Supreme Court opinions or lower court decisions as yet that specifically establish such a right, though a few appellate court rulings involve circumstances around the issue. So an ultimate ruling in the AP’s favor specifically on White House access would break new First Amendment ground. Legislative action is not likely to settle the matter, given the Constitution’s separation of powers.

The AP’s February letter contends the ban on its reporters violates a long-established general tenet of First Amendment rights, under which the government at any level cannot restrict the content of speech on any matter or punish a speaker for a viewpoint it dislikes. The White House’s February 2025 statement, however, claims only to be acting against the spread of misinformation: the AP’s failure to use the new name for the Gulf.

While the judges who ruled for the White House in June’s appeals court decision said the ban is clearly within presidential authority, the dissenting judge, Cornelia Pillard, wrote, “There is no principled basis for exempting the press’ activities in any White House ‘press area’ from the requirements of viewpoint neutrality.”

Pillard also warned — in a long-term view — that “if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike. Factually accurate journalism unflattering to the incumbent administration would not long endure.”

Can the government compel a news organization — or anyone — to use specific wording or report only in a certain way?

No. The First Amendment prevents government from requiring speech just as it prevents government from limiting speech.

In 1943, in the Supreme Court decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote that freedom of speech protects the right not to speak as much as it protects the freedom to express ourselves. Jackson wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Courts may be asked to decide if the White House decision violates that “fixed star.”

Past disputes and cases involving press access to White House events

Over the past few decades, there have been several cases involving journalists’ access to White House events:

• In 1974, speaking at the Yale University Law School, then-Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said that “there is no constitutional right [for the press] to have access to particular government information, or to require openness from the bureaucracy.”
• In 1977, an appeals court ruled that the First Amendment limits the right of the White House to arbitrarily deny a press pass to a journalist (Sherrill v. Knight). The Nation journalist Robert Sherrill had been denied White House credentials several times over a decade. He decided after the appellate ruling not to apply again. The case never reached the Supreme Court.
• In 2006, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld an order by then-Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich instructing state officials not to speak with two Baltimore Sun journalists. The court’s decision was based on the fact that other reporters for the newspaper were not covered by the order and thus could gather and report freely. The court also noted that the reporters had attended several government events where space was not limited, and the press were generally invited.
• In 2009, during the Obama administration, the White House attempted to make a U.S. Treasury Department official available to a group of reporters in the network pool except for Fox News, a member of the pool. The administration rescinded its decision after the other networks in the pool said they would not participate if the White House blocked Fox News from the interview.
• The few press room access incidents during Trump’s first term, including a high-profile 2018 dispute involving then-CNN reporter Jim Acosta, were resolved around non-First Amendment considerations: due-process issues, including adherence to established press room rules, or lack of sufficient time for appeal of a decision that reduced or removed access to events and places within the White House.
• In April 2025, an appeals court ruled that areas in the White House generally accessed by the press are “nonpublic forums.” As a result, restricting access to those with a so-called hard pass (a pass issued to journalists who regularly cover the White House) — and the rules that determine who gets a hard pass in the first place — do not violate the First Amendment unless someone is rejected based on their viewpoint.

Who decides who is a journalist?

The First Amendment’s 45 words note that it protects “freedom ... of the press.” A firm definition beyond these words, and the authority to make such a decision, has vexed lawmakers. The concern is that any wording beyond “everyone is a journalist who says they are” either is limiting by naming only certain people, organizations or methods, or grants official recognition that could be withdrawn at the whim of the government.

In the last Congressional term, the PRESS ACT, a proposed shield law providing protections for journalists and confidential sources, used this definition: “A person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.”

Under this definition, the AP’s reporters are no doubt journalists, but this doesn’t necessarily play a decisive part on whether a First Amendment violation has occurred.

When do access rules to any governmental event or place violate a journalist’s First Amendment rights?

Journalists have the same First Amendment rights regarding access to government officials — no more and no less — as the rest of us, and such rules are grounded in the concept that the press represents the public in holding the government accountable and reporting on policy, practice and performance, not as a special or separate class. The government has the right to deploy reasonable time, place and manner restrictions — such as the size of the press contingent given the size of a room involved or for demonstrable security purposes, for example.

But multiple court decisions through the years require the government to justify limits of any kind on First Amendment rights. As noted in the AP’s letter to the White House, those rulings say officials cannot limit those freedoms because they disagree with the viewpoint or content of what journalists — or anyone else — write, say or post. The nation’s founders provided such strong protection based on the principle of the “marketplace of ideas,” where the test of truth is acceptance by the public, not by government edict.

The Trump White House argues the AP’s refusal to use Gulf of America is spreading misinformation. Court decisions regarding speech and free press limits have required proof of "irreversible harm” such as a direct and immediate threat to national security, not simple disagreement or misinformation.

Historically, such constitutional collisions over free press rights involved attempts to silence the press, not the issue of forcing it to say something. The most famous attempt at restraining what a free press may report is New York Times Company v. United States (1971), the Pentagon Papers case in which the Nixon administration tried to bar two newspapers from publishing a classified Pentagon document on U.S. actions in Vietnam. The government’s case didn’t succeed there, the court said, because it failed to show “clear and present danger” to the nation.

What are other First Amendment implications in these incidents?

Congress and the courts have rejected various attempts by the government to license journalists in a manner that requires licenses for lawyers or doctors. The reasons such proposals have not been adopted are similar to those that prevent government from deciding without limit what qualifies as a religion, a political party or “good speech.” The First Amendment puts such things beyond the reach of our elected representatives to eliminate the possibility of censorship or control under the cover of issuing or withdrawing such licenses. That position extends back to colonial times and earlier, when the British crown used licensing power over printers in just that manner.

Also worth noting: The White House may use what President Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago called its “bully pulpit” to publicly criticize the AP’s style decision on the Gulf.

As has happened throughout this nation’s history, the standards, exceptions or limits determined in this relatively focused dispute could well have larger implications on issues as far-ranging as free expression rights for all and what constitutes presidential authority.

This article was updated on June 11, 2025. It may be updated with future developments.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at Freedom Forum. He can be reached at [email protected].