The Associated Press was not included in the in-town pool Monday, and its journalists were rebuffed when trying to cover an Oval Office meeting.

Last week, a federal judge in D.C. ordered the White House to stop preventing Associated Press journalists from attending presidential events because of the news organization’s decision to continue using the name Gulf of Mexico.

Judge Trevor N. McFadden decided to lift the ban — which had been in place since Feb. 11 — while the AP’s lawsuit against the White House plays out, arguing in a scathing ruling that blocking the news organization’s journalists over a stylebook decision violated their constitutional rights.

He stayed his own ruling for five days to allow an appeal, meaning it expired Sunday. But on Monday, it was as if nothing had changed. The AP was not included in the limited pool of journalists covering the president, as it had been before the ban. And when AP journalists attempted to cover Trump’s Oval Office meeting with the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, they were rebuffed.

“Our journalists were blocked from the Oval Office today,” AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said. “We expect the White House to restore AP’s participation in the pool as of today, as provided in the injunction order.”

While AP photographers were permitted to cover a 3 p.m. presidential event with the Ohio State University football team on the South Lawn, a print journalist was not.

McFadden issued the injunction on April 8, arguing that the White House had improperly discriminated against the AP and had caused “significant, concrete harms.”

Get the Post Most Newsletter

The most popular and interesting stories of the day to keep you in the know. In your inbox, every day.

Lawyers for the White House have appealed the judge’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which so far has declined to extend an emergency stay. On Thursday afternoon, the White House will have an opportunity to argue to a three-judge panel why the stay should be reissued while the case plays out, with both sides given 15 minutes to make their case.

While the White House did not reply to a request for comment about the rejection of AP’s journalists Monday, lawyers for the administration acknowledged in a separate letter to the appeals court that the stay has expired and the injunction overturning the ban “has now taken effect.”

“As of this morning, the President of the United States is subject to an order imposing terms on which he must admit individuals to the Oval Office and other restricted spaces,” a representative of Trump’s Justice Department wrote. “In light of the magnitude of this intrusion, a continued stay is warranted until this Court can reach the merits of the government’s motion.”

The AP’s lawyers sent their own letter objecting to the White House’s legal maneuver and arguing that the injunction should not be stayed. “Furthermore, permitting the government to continue discriminating and retaliating against the AP based on viewpoint, even temporarily, would increase the harms while the Court deliberates,” they wrote. “Indeed, the government will suffer no harm from the injunction remaining in effect, while the AP will suffer irreparable harm from a stay of the injunction safeguarding its First Amendment rights.”

While the White House is not allowed to ban AP journalists for editorial reasons, the judge did not order the administration to let specific journalists into specific events.

Limits on access “must be reasonable and not viewpoint-based,” the judge wrote in his April 8 motion. “So while the AP does not have a constitutional right to enter the Oval Office, it does have a right to not be excluded because of its viewpoint. … All the AP wants, and all it gets, is a level playing field.”

Jeremy Barr covers the media industry for The Washington Post.

Democracy Dies in Darkness

© 1996-2025 The Washington Post

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5710769&forum_id=2).#48848416)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5710769&forum_id=2).#48851321)