White House Wins Legal Fight to Keep AP Reporters at Bay

An appeals court has upheld the Trump administration’s restrictions on The Associated Press (AP) after the news organization refused to replace “Gulf of Mexico” with “Gulf of America” in its stylebook. The administration’s response? Ban them from certain White House spaces. Yes, this is real life, we’re not in an Orwellian dystopia, at least not yet.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit maintained a June 6 ruling that legally permits the Trump administration to restrict access to the AP. Essentially, the appeals court has allowed a petty semantic squabble over a centuries-old geographical term to dictate policy on press access. This brings me to my next argument.

The left will tell you that this is a straightforward assault on free speech. They’ll argue that the government is retaliating against the AP for not bending to its linguistic demands. They’ll say that the AP was exercising its First Amendment rights when it chose to stick with the term “Gulf of Mexico.” This is absurd. Why? Because there’s a difference between challenging authority and abiding by petty rules imposed by said authority. It’s the difference between speaking truth to power and refusing to play Simon Says with the powers that be.

The AP, in a statement, claimed the press and public have a fundamental right to speak freely without government retaliation, which is true. What they are missing, however, is the differentiation between principled free speech and the unwillingness to capitulate to a trivial demand. Is it pettiness on the part of the government? Yes. Is it a violation of free speech? Not necessarily.

The AP notched a victory when U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled in their favor, stating the White House cannot admit some journalists while excluding others based on views. Yet, two of the three judges on the D.C. Circuit panel, appointed by Trump, paused McFadden’s order. The lone dissenting judge, an Obama appointee, disagreed.

Let me ask you a question: Is this a battle for free speech or a clash of pettiness? The AP is now potentially setting up an appeal to the Supreme Court. This is the problem with that logic: It’s a waste of resources and time, both for the AP and the courts, over a semantic squabble. Facts don’t care about your feelings, or your geographical preferences for that matter. Let’s focus on the real issues, not petty semantics.