Trump-appointed judge orders White House to restore Associated Press access

In February, Donald Trump and his White House team announced that they'd already won their case against The Associated Press in the 'Gulf of America' case. In fact, following a procedural development in February, the White House heavily promoted images featuring the Republican-preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico and a giant 'VICTORY' stamp over the southeastern United States.
Those inclined to believe the president and his political operation likely assumed that the case was over. It was not. In fact, as NBC News reported, a federal judge has now ruled against the White House.
A federal judge on Tuesday called The Associated Press' exclusion from White House events 'contrary to the First Amendment' and ordered the Trump administration to treat the newswire as it would any other media publication. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ... ordered the administration to 'put the AP on an equal playing field as similarly situated outlets, despite the AP's use of disfavored terminology.'
'[U]nder the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,' McFadden added in his ruling.
For those who might benefit from a refresher, it was in early February when the White House prevented Associated Press journalists from attending official events for an exceedingly misguided reason: AP reports referred to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of Mexico. Trump and his team want news organizations to instead use the Republican-endorsed name — the 'Gulf of America' — so the White House punished the AP over it.
What was not immediately obvious at the time was whether the incident was a one-day retaliatory tantrum or the start of something larger. It quickly became apparent that the White House had settled on the latter.
The wire service took the matter to court, and in legal filings, White House officials acknowledged that the president personally approved the access ban for AP journalists.
Trump and his team were likely delighted to learn that the case would be heard by McFadden — a Trump-appointed conservative and longtime Federalist Society member. They were far less pleased when he ruled against the White House anyway.
The president and his lawyers are expected to appeal the ruling (McFadden's order won't take effect until Sunday, giving the administration several days to file an emergency appeal), but as the case proceeds, it's worth re-emphasizing the fact that there are larger principles at stake that are far broader than what people call a body of water. Indeed, this controversy, at its root, is about a White House waging an aggressive campaign against the free press and, in this instance, is also trying to bully one of the nation's leading news organizations into submission as part of an Orwellian campaign.
Team Trump appears to have embraced a vision of the First Amendment in which people and businesses are free to use the words and phrases that Republicans like — or face the consequences.
A conservative federal judge has now told the White House that such a position is unconstitutional.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

18 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Pakistan condemns Trump for bombing Iran a day after recommending him for a Nobel Peace Prize

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for bombing Iran, less than 24 hours after saying he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for defusing a recent crisis with India. Relations between the two South Asian countries plummeted after a massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April. The nuclear-armed rivals stepped closer to war in the weeks that followed, attacking each other until intense diplomatic efforts, led by the U.S., resulted in a truce for which Trump took credit. It was this 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' that Pakistan praised in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than 24 hours later, however, it condemned the U.S. for attacking Iran, saying the strikes 'constituted a serious violation of international law' and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in a phone call Sunday with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed his concern that the bombings had targeted facilities that were under the safeguards of the IAEA. Pakistan has close ties with Iran and supports its attacks on Israel, saying it has the right to self-defense. There was no immediate comment on Monday from Islamabad about the Trump Nobel recommendation, which also followed a high-profile White House lunch meeting between the president and Pakistan's powerful army chief, Asim Munir. Thursday's meeting, which lasted more than two hours, was also attended by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs. According to a Pakistani military statement, a detailed exchange of views took place on the 'prevailing tensions between Iran and Israel, with both leaders emphasizing the importance of the resolution of the conflict.' While Pakistan was quick to thank Trump for his intervention in its crisis with India, New Delhi played it down and said there was no need for external mediation on the Kashmir issue. The Himalayan region of Kashmir is divided between Pakistan and India but claimed by both in its entirety. India accuses Pakistan of backing militant groups in the region, which Pakistan denies.

San Francisco Chronicle​

25 minutes ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Russian attacks on Ukraine kill at least 5 and injure over a dozen

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Russian drone and missile attack on Ukraine's capital overnight killed at least four people and injured others, according to Ukraine's emergency services, as rescue workers and firefighters sought to remove people they believed trapped under debris in a partially collapsed apartment building. The strikes came nearly a week after a combined Russian attack on Ukraine last Tuesday killed 28 people in Kyiv, 23 of them in a residential building that collapsed after sustaining a direct hit by a missile. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called that attack one of the biggest bombardments of the war, now in its fourth year. In the early hours of Monday, drones and missiles hit residential areas, hospitals and sports infrastructure in numerous districts across Kyiv, emergency services said, with the most severe damage occurring in the Shevchenkivskyi district, where one section of a five-story apartment building collapsed. Four people were confirmed dead in the attack on the building while 10 others had been rescued, emergency services said, adding they believed others were still trapped beneath the debris. Another person was killed and eight injured in the city of Bila Tserkva in the Kyiv region, around 85 kilometers (53 miles) southwest of the capital.

Bloomberg

32 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

What Does the US Strike on Iran Mean for Israel?

Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Walk us through how the Israeli public has responded to the US military intervention over the weekend. Good morning, Joumanna. Yes, well, this was a dramatic weekend, one of historic proportions in Israel as elsewhere in the region and in the world, especially countries that have a stake in this part of the world. And Israelis, I would say this is to judge by everything from television panelists to the people I've shared bomb shelters with during the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks appear to be relieved, jubilant, astonished at the fact that the world's great power, the United States, did intervene finally, and using its firepower for what appears to have been a knockout blow, at least as described by President Trump and by his staff to the Iranian nuclear program. Of course, the question is whether it was a knockout blow. And I think what you're going to see today is the discourse shifting to one of BDA. That's the refrain you'll be hearing a lot of battle damage assessments, whether indeed it was a knockout blow, whether indeed the damage was enough to end any credible work at those sites and effectively allow Israel to pack up and say that the war is over. The main threat, what it's described as the main threat to its existence going back decades has now been dealt with conclusively. I thought it was interesting. The Israeli prime minister gave a televised address yesterday where he said Israel is very close to reaching goals in Iran but will also avoid a war of attrition. How should we be reading those comments, Dan? Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the two countries are separated by something like a thousand miles of territory. I think three international borders, Iran is something like 70 times the size of Israel. There really is an asymmetry here in terms of disposition, geography, military standing. So for all the virtuosity of Israeli forces here, I don't think they could afford to sustain fighting in the long run, something akin to what we've seen in the last 20 months in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, which are neighboring countries or neighboring territories. So the Israelis are looking logistically at this. I think they're also signaling to the American public, those Americans who are wondering whether this is a repeat of 2003 in Iraq, that this was a one time deal for Israel and for the United States, that perhaps the US role has begun and ended with this airstrike and that Israel, the country most involved in this, the U.S. ally, is really also trying to wrap things up as soon as it believes that its goals have been achieved and those goals may be achieved very soon.