The Associated Press and the Trump administration argued in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Monday, November 24, 2025. The case could influence presidential power regarding media access, specifically addressing whether a president can block journalists from events with limited space due to disagreements over news content.
President Trump limited the AP’s access to events in confined spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One. This action followed the AP’s decision not to adopt Trump’s proposed name change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in its Stylebook. The president indicated that the AP’s access would remain limited until it changed its style policy regarding the naming issue.
Arguments were presented to a three-judge panel, but no immediate decision was made. The panel included Trump appointees Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, who had previously voted against the AP as part of a separate appellate panel in spring 2025, and Robert Wilkins, appointed by former President Barack Obama. During the hearing, Charles Tobin, representing the AP, said, “The First Amendment does not stop at the Oval Office door.”
The issue originated after a lower federal court decided that Trump improperly retaliated against the AP regarding the Gulf of Mexico naming disagreement. However, the appeals court prevented the ruling from taking effect, leaving it to the White House to decide the AP’s access to presidential events.
The Trump administration argues it has the authority to select the pool composition, similar to how the president selects individuals for interviews. The administration suggests that the AP’s reliance on perpetual access is not the government’s responsibility. Yaakov Roth, arguing for the Trump administration, questioned the limits of presidential invitation authority, noting that no one expects the president to invite equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats to the White House Christmas party.
Judge Rao expressed doubt about implementing a rule to address the AP’s concerns and questioned Tobin about whether an injunction against the president would be necessary. Such injunctions are rare, as courts generally act against executive aides rather than the president directly. She also questioned how courts could differentiate between pool events and individual journalist events.
Judge Wilkins challenged the administration by asking if it could deny White House tour access to Kansas citizens if an appointee found a critical social media post. “Woe to the public,” Wilkins commented.
Since the disagreement started, the White House has occasionally allowed AP journalists into limited-space events, while AP photographers have had more frequent access. Julie Pace, AP’s executive editor, wrote in an op-ed that the issue of access goes beyond the organization itself. She pointed out that press freedom relates to public access to government information, with reporters asking questions and documenting events on behalf of citizens. Pace warned that allowing the government to control press coverage of the presidency undermines the First Amendment.
The case has attracted support from numerous media organizations. Nearly four dozen press entities filed a brief supporting the AP, including outlets like ProPublica, Fox News Channel, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.
The Gulf of Mexico naming issue has mostly faded from public attention. A Nieman Lab study last month found that the term Gulf of America is mostly used in conservative outlets and trade publications dealing with government regulations. The AP’s Stylebook advises acknowledging Trump’s renaming while using the traditional name.
The case tests presidential control over media access, with possible First Amendment implications. Pool reporters share information with the larger press corps, making access decisions crucial for public information flow.
The AP produces content for numerous news outlets worldwide, making access restrictions particularly important for global news distribution. The outcome of this appeal could set a precedent for how future administrations engage with news organizations and define the limits of presidential discretion in managing press access.
