A federal appeals court has ruled in favour of President Donald Trump in his ongoing legal dispute with the Associated Press (AP), allowing him to restrict the news agency’s access to the Oval Office and other areas within the White House.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned an earlier ruling by a lower court that had found the administration’s actions violated the AP’s First Amendment rights. The appeals court granted a partial stay on the lower court’s injunction, siding with Trump’s argument that the White House is not a public forum and that the president retains broad discretion over who is granted access.
“We grant in part the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal,” Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao wrote in the ruling. “The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion.”
The court also held that the administration has the right to make such access decisions “including on the basis of viewpoint,” and warned that not allowing a stay would cause “irreparable harm” to the president’s independence over his workspace.
The case stems from a dispute that began when the Trump Administration barred the AP from certain press events following the outlet’s refusal to use the term “Gulf of America” in place of “Gulf of Mexico,” after Trump signed an executive order directing government documents to reflect the new naming.
In April, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden had sided with the AP and issued an injunction compelling the White House to restore access. “If the Government opens its doors to some journalists…it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote.
The Trump Administration responded by taking greater control of the White House press pool, a move the AP described as an attempt to sidestep the court’s ruling.
Following Friday’s appellate decision, a spokesperson for the AP expressed disappointment, saying, “We are reviewing our options.”
The outcome marks a significant moment in the legal clash over press freedom and executive control, with broader implications for how administrations can regulate media access to government spaces.
