The Associated Press and the Trump administration faced off Monday, Nov. 24, 2025, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a case that could reshape presidential authority over media access. The dispute centers on whether a president can exclude journalists from limited-space events based on disagreements over news coverage.
President Trump restricted the AP’s access to events in smaller spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One after the news organization declined to follow his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in its influential Stylebook. The president stated that AP’s access would remain restricted until it changed its style guidance on the naming issue.
A three-judge panel heard arguments from both sides, though no immediate ruling was issued. The panel included judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees who previously voted against the AP as part of a separate appellate panel last spring, along with Robert Wilkins, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
Charles Tobin, the attorney representing the AP, argued that the administration cannot discriminate based on a news organization’s 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 said during the proceedings.
The case originated when a lower federal court ruled that Trump improperly retaliated against the outlet over the Gulf of Mexico naming dispute. However, the appeals court prevented parts of that ruling from taking effect, effectively leaving it up to the White House to determine the AP’s access to presidential events.
The fundamental disagreement revolves around who controls access to “pool” events where space limitations prevent all journalists from attending. The Trump administration maintains it has the authority to determine the makeup of these pools in the same way the president decides whom to grant interviews. The administration’s position suggests that if the AP built a business model depending on favored-nation status in perpetuity, that is hardly the government’s fault.
Yaakov Roth, the principal deputy assistant attorney general arguing for the Trump administration, questioned where limits on presidential invitation authority 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 skepticism about implementing a rule that would satisfy the outlet’s concerns, asking Tobin whether an injunction against the president would ultimately be necessary for his proposal to work. Such injunctions against a sitting president are extremely rare, as judges typically act against people who work for the chief executive rather than the president directly. She also questioned how courts would distinguish between pool events and individual journalist events.
Judge Wilkins challenged the administration’s position 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 given AP writers sporadic access to limited-space events at the White House, while AP photographers have received much more frequent access. Tobin argued the new policy has hurt the AP’s business, noting that for years, AP journalists had been virtually always included in pool events.
Julie Pace, AP’s executive editor, wrote in an op-ed piece Monday morning 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 letting the government control which journalists can cover the highest office and setting rules about what they can write directly attempts to undercut the First Amendment.
The case has drawn significant support from across the media landscape. Nearly four dozen press organizations filed a brief supporting the AP, with news outlets ranging from ProPublica to Fox News Channel, along with 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 consulted by journalists worldwide, recommends acknowledging Trump’s renaming of the Gulf while maintaining the traditional name.
The case represents a test of 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 around the world, making the access restrictions particularly significant for global news distribution. The outcome of this appeal could establish precedent for how future administrations interact with news organizations and determine the boundaries of presidential discretion in managing press access.