The Associated Press and President Trump’s administration presented their arguments on Monday, November 24, 2025, in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The case could redefine presidential authority over media access, focusing on whether a president can exclude journalists from events with limited space due to disagreements over news coverage.
President Trump restricted 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 renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in its Stylebook. Trump asserted that AP’s access would remain limited until it changed its style guidance on this issue.
A three-judge panel listened to arguments from both parties without issuing an immediate decision. The panel comprised Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by Trump and who previously ruled against the AP in another appellate panel in the spring, and Robert Wilkins, appointed by former President Barack Obama.
Charles Tobin, representing the AP, argued that the administration cannot discriminate against a news organization based on its freedom of speech when journalists are invited to cover events on a pool basis. “The First Amendment does not stop at the Oval Office door,” Tobin stated during the proceedings.
The case arose when a lower federal court ruled that Trump improperly retaliated against the outlet over the Gulf of Mexico naming issue. However, the appeals court blocked parts of that ruling, effectively allowing the White House to decide on the AP’s access to presidential events.
The central issue concerns who controls access to “pool” events, where space limitations prevent all journalists from attending. The Trump administration claims it has the authority to determine the composition of these pools, similar to how the president decides who receives interviews. The administration’s stance suggests that if the AP relies on favored-nation status indefinitely, it is not the government’s responsibility.
Yaakov Roth, principal deputy assistant attorney general for the Trump administration, questioned where presidential invitation authority limits would end. He suggested nobody would argue the president must invite equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats to the White House Christmas party.
Judge Rao expressed doubts about implementing a rule to address the outlet’s concerns, questioning Tobin on whether an injunction against the president would be necessary for his proposal. Such injunctions against a sitting president are rare, as judges typically act against individuals working for the chief executive rather than the president directly. She also questioned how courts would differentiate between pool and individual journalist events.
Judge Wilkins challenged the administration’s stance by asking whether it could bar Kansas citizens who obtained White House tour tickets if an appointee discovered one had posted something critical of the president on social media. “Woe to the public,” Wilkins remarked.
Since the dispute began, the White House has intermittently allowed AP writers access to limited-space events at the White House, while AP photographers have received more frequent access. Tobin argued the new policy has negatively impacted the AP’s business, noting that AP journalists were consistently included in pool events for years.
Julie Pace, AP’s executive editor, stated in an op-ed that the question of access extends beyond her organization. She emphasized that press freedom ultimately concerns public access to government information, as reporters ask questions, photographers take pictures, and video journalists record history on behalf of citizens who lack the time to investigate matters themselves. Pace warned that allowing the government to control which journalists can cover the highest office and set rules on what they can write directly threatens the First Amendment.
The case has garnered significant support from the media industry. Nearly four dozen press organizations filed a brief supporting the AP, with news outlets like ProPublica, Fox News Channel, The New York Times, and The Washington Post joining the effort.
The Gulf of Mexico naming controversy has largely faded from public discourse. A study by the Nieman Lab last month found that in journalism, use of the Gulf of America has been mostly confined to conservative outlets and trade publications dealing frequently with government regulation. The AP’s Stylebook, which sets guidance for consistency on phrase usage and is consulted by journalists worldwide, recommends acknowledging Trump’s renaming of the Gulf while maintaining the traditional name.
The case tests presidential authority over media access with potential First Amendment implications. Pool arrangements exist because space constraints in locations like the Oval Office and Air Force One prevent all journalists from attending every presidential event. Traditionally, pool reporters share information with the broader press corps, making access decisions consequential for public information flow.
The AP reports and produces content for thousands of news outlets and other organizations worldwide, making the access restrictions particularly significant for global news distribution. The outcome of this appeal could set a precedent for how future administrations interact with news organizations and define the boundaries of presidential discretion in managing press access.
