The Associated Press (AP) really did not particularly enjoy being the ones not invited to the party. So, of course, AP went to court.
First, there was the whole Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America thing. Then, AP became PNG. Then, came their lawyers. The preliminary injunction issued yesterday afternoon against the White House by Judge Trevor McFadden, a first-term Trump appointee, states dis-allowing AP to attend the White House events, have access to the Oval Office and be part of the press corps on Air Force One is unconstitutional.
The Government offers no other plausible explanation for its treatment of the AP. The Constitution forbids viewpoint discrimination, even in a nonpublic forum like the Oval Office.
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.
The Court merely declares that the AP’s exclusion has been contrary to the First Amendment, and it enjoins the Government from continuing down that unlawful path,” ”-Judge Trevor McFadden
This decision comes down a few weeks after Evan Vucci, a photographer for AP, claimed the news outlet was “dead in the water” from the recent ban. Evan Vucci was the same photographer who took the now iconic picture of Donald Trump after surviving an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania last summer
Admittedly, not allowing AP to be part of the White House press corps is a little petty; especially over Trump’s Style Book differences between The Gulf of Mexico and The Gulf of America. This decision that came down yesterday afternoon states that AP certainly has a right to their opinions, many of which which they include in their Stylebook; which is designed to “help” other news outlets and “guide” their reporting. This includes the claims that ” gender is a spectrum, not a binary structure consisting of only men and women, that can vary among societies and can change over time”. Or that “a person’s sex is sometimes assigned at birth inaccurately”. We won’t even get into the AP’s stance on abortion and reporting on abortion-related issues.
Or, their general haughty demeanor when they are allowed into events:
Despite the AP’s editorial choices towards left-leaning bias, Judge McFadden does not think this alone is a disqualifying measure keeping the (fake) news outlet from access to the President.
The Court does not order the Government to grant the AP permanent access to the Oval Office, the East Room, or any other media event. It does not bestow special treatment upon the AP. But it cannot be treated worse than its peer wire services either.”-Judge Trevor McFadden
However, McFadden also wrote that his ruling does not prevent the White House from limiting the AP’s access to certain presidential events and spaces for “permissible reasons.” In other words, “play nice or. stay out”…? Read between the lines here:
The first amendment grants the freedom of the press, and prevents the government from silencing you.
Nothing in the constitution grants you access.
— Seth Freakin Rich (@SethRichPanda) April 8, 2025
We will see if “play nice or stay out” happens. From Lauren Easton, spokesperson of the AP:
Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution. We look forward to continuing to provide factual, nonpartisan and independent coverage of the White House for billions of people around the world.”-Lauren Easton, AP
Factual? Nonpartisan? Now, that’s a stretch!
Photo Credit: rochelle hartman, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
GWB says: They got away with this s*** in Trump’s first administration.
I think Trump will have his cannons loaded this time, and his powder dry.
dis-allowing AP to attend the White House events, have access to the Oval Office and be part of the press corps on Air Force One is unconstitutional
There’s someone who REALLY doesn’t understand the words in the Constitution. There is no right of the “professional” press to have specific access. It’s enough there is general access to the people (who bear the right of freedom of the press).
(BTW, this is the same problem the Progs have with “militia” and police powers, too. They firmly believe that since we have a “professional” military and police and press corps, the rights of the people have been terminated in regards to those things.)
The Constitution forbids viewpoint discrimination
So? Where is the viewpoint discrimination here? As long as the President allows the press in, generally, then he can NOT let in those he doesn’t want to. He is NOT required to actually support viewpoints with which he does not agree.
(Another famous Prog strategy: to redefine freedom as demanding something from others. They did it with Christianity – “Oh, but you have to to shut up about Christianity because allowing it is viewpoint discrimination against ‘secular’ people.)
For the Government to put the AP on an equal playing field as similarly situated outlets
Oh, so the President should put every single American on that access list for equal consideration? Because that’s who the Constitution actually protects. (I think Trump should do that, BTW. And use a lottery system to deem who has access each day. “Today, 9 April, GWB, a reader, Cameron, Lisa Carr, and Scott get seats in the press pool. We can provide pencils and notepads if you need, but you will have to bring your own recording devices.” And the AP will NOT get admitted very often, purely by virtue of numbers.)
is a little petty
So? Nowhere does the Constitution forbid that.
This decision that came down yesterday afternoon states that AP certainly has a right to their opinions
Nope. That is NOT what the ruling said. It privileged the AP over other outlets because the judge thinks it is “professional” and has “gravitas” or some such malarkey. It has a right to that seat because it is oh-so-important-and-better than some icky blogger or upstart news outlet. Or, just even some no-name putz from Scranton. Access to the President is not a guaranteed right for any particular person or group. And absolutely nothing is stopping the AP from printing whatever it wants in whatever style it wants. First Amendment rights not impacted in the least.
Judge McFadden does not think this alone is a disqualifying measure
So what? His opinion shouldn’t matter in the least. Again, the concept of a “disqualifying” measure means they have some other qualifying measure that I do not, as a citizen. And that’s bullcarp. The idea of an un-biased press is one of the biggest lies of Progressivism. (The idea that Progressivism is not a religion and it isn’t biased in its worldview are the largest.) This is entirely an issue of an acceptably “credentialed” group of people (many of whom are NOT American citizens) forcing their way into a position of privilege.
But it cannot be treated worse than its peer wire services either.
IOW, exactly what I’ve been saying – a position of privilege because it somehow has the “right” reputation/credentials and such. Maybe I should call myself a “wire service” and demand equal access to the briefings.
for “permissible reasons.”
IOW, the things with which HE would agree. F*** that. He’s proven his reasoning isn’t in line with the Constitution, so he doesn’t get to play kingmaker.
Also, the whole reason they were dumped is because they didn’t “play nice”. Trump took his ball and went home because they wouldn’t follow the rules as he stated them. (And he didn’t do it because of the “Gulf of America” thing. He used that to poke them in the eye for being such biased, anti-Trump jerks and liars.)
to speak freely without government retaliation
No. That’s not what it did, and that’s not what the First Amendment says.
We look forward to continuing to provide factual, nonpartisan and independent coverage of the White House
Wow. When did they start doing that?
Just as a reminder, AP has been known as “Associated (with terrorists) Press” for a couple of decades now. Their “stringers” in Palestine have routinely provided them Palliwood materials that they presented without any acknowledgement of the bias involved. (And I’m being kind calling it “bias.”) I think they were the ones involved in that copy-and-paste picture on the cover of Time, where it was obvious the smoke clouds had been duplicated to make it look like a precision strike had been a general bombardment. They lied for Biden’s administration and for 0bama’s, and lied against Trump in his first administration. Their prestige is that of universities – entirely unfounded on anything recent and a shell of their former selves.
1 Comment