Journalism fills a multi-functional and foundational role in the American democratic system by connecting political information to future judgments and decisions by the public. Citizens gain access to widespread information about topics such as legislation, foreign affairs, or, most notably, the campaigns of government officials. As one would expect, the interrelated nature between government and media is not without tensions implicit in the results of their professional duties as they affect each other. In an era where media trust is historically low, lawmakers and highly-ranked government officials seemingly recognize their power to reinforce the perceived agendas of news outlets as well as their influence on media’s civic freedoms and limitations in proper reflection of the United States Constitution.
Within the first hundred days of President Donald Trump’s nonconsecutive second term in office, his long-lived contempt for mainstream media outlets has taken bold form comparable to instances from his first term, such as blacklisting former CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after a tense sequence of questioning (Grynbaum, 2018). The most prominent current example is when the White House blocked the Associated Press reporters from press events in reaction to the outlet’s persistent use of the term “Gulf of Mexico” despite Trump’s executive order to rename the body of water “Gulf of America” (Haberman & Robertson, 2025). The AP explained that the decision aimed to maintain editorial standards and would “continue calling the body of water the Gulf of Mexico because Mr. Trump’s executive order only carried authority within the U.S. and had not been recognized by Mexico” (Haberman & Robertson, 2025). More promptly, the AP stylebook states, “The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years. Refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen” (AP Stylebook, 2025). As a result, the AP sued Trump administrative officials because the White House’s press blockage infringes on First Amendment protections and attempts to govern the press’s language (Goudsward, 2025). This study will examine the lawsuit between the White House and the AP through the lens of Trump’s demagogic behavior and the First Amendment.
Arguments
Indeed, the lawsuit’s central argument related to Constitutional law was not entirely obvious, given that the AP continued to conduct its work outside the White House, but it deserved examination. A common theme in the outlet’s argument is the emphasis on the freedoms of independent news organizations from government control. In its lawsuit, the AP stated, “The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government” (Sedensky, 2025). Simultaneously, AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton stated:
Freedom of speech is a pillar of American democracy and a core value of the American people. The White House has said it supports these principles. The actions taken to restrict AP’s coverage of presidential events because of how we refer to a geographic location chip away at this important right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution for all Americans (Bauder, 2025).
Meanwhile, claiming no evidence of irreparable harm, the White House denied that the AP had a special right to access and reiterated its “commitment to misinformation.” Trump regarded the AP as “radical left lunatics” and plans to bar its access until the phrasing is changed (Bauder, 2025). The White House framed access availability as a privilege instead of a legal right, an attempt to abrade the AP’s claims of press suppression and language exercises. However, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the AP’s executive editor, Julie Pace, addressed misconceptions, stating, “For anyone who thinks the Associated Press’s lawsuit against President Trump’s White House is about the name of a body of water, think bigger. It’s really about whether the government can control what you say” (Pace, 2025). Pace’s article negated ideas that reduced the issue to the term “Gulf of America” and instead pointed to the lawsuit as resistance against the White House’s orders, which could set a precedent for further government involvement with independent press organizations.
Press Pool
A crucial component in considering this lawsuit is that the press pool responsible for news organizations and the AP’s access to the White House is delegated by a group of journalists detached from the White House called the “White House Correspondents Association (WHCA).” Formed in 1914 as a protective veil from President Woodrow Wilson’s threats to eradicate presidential news conferences, WHCA manages a rotation of reporters and photographers who cover the president to record and disperse information to preserve democratic processes and support the fairness and diversity of journalistic opportunity. WHCA released multiple statements denouncing the White House’s actions, claiming they were “viewpoint discrimination.” One of WHCA’s foundational principles is to provide the public with third-party accounts of the president in order to ensure that whoever is in office is held accountable (WHCA, 2025).
The most notable shift in the issue came after U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden ordered the administration to restore the AP’s access to events on the account that “no news organization should be shut out because the president objects to its news decisions — under a principle called viewpoint discrimination” (Bauder, 2025). Although the AP received brief access after the court ruling, The White House announced a policy indicating that it would manage the press pool without consulting the WHCA and continued to bar the AP (Condon, 2025). It is worth noting, however, that the new policy “eliminated a dedicated spot for wire services but said those outlets would be eligible for selection for one of two print reporter spots” (Barr, 2025). Simultaneously, the White House extended the attention to the issue and appealed the judge’s ruling to the appellate court. According to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, the administration believes it is “necessary to ensure that the President’s message reaches targeted audiences and that outlets with applicable subject-matter expertise are present as events warrant.” Leavitt will “retain day-to-day discretion to determine composition of the pool” (Barr & Vasquez, 2025).
In a response statement, WHCA president Eugene Daniels perpetuated the organization’s assertion that “The White House’s insistence they would also ‘retain day-to-day discretion’ of the pool’s composition rather than utilize regular rotations with clear criteria also underscores that the administration remains unwilling to provide guarantees they will not continue to engage in the viewpoint discrimination that was ruled unlawful by a federal court” (WHCA, 2025). The appeal has left the issue unresolved and raised concerns surrounding free speech and democratic processes.
What does this mean?
Since his return to the Oval Office, Trump’s efforts toward media and institutions at large that are unaligned with his agenda are widespread and intolerant. One instance includes the administration’s efforts to dismantle and defund government-funded broadcast programs accused of being “anti-Trump,” such as Voice of America, even though a federal judge ordered their restoration (Epstein, 2025). In another instance, White House officials established a policy indicating their refusal to engage with reporters who include their pronouns in their email signatures; as Leavitt states, “Any reporter who chooses to put their preferred pronouns in their bio clearly does not care about biological reality or truth and therefore cannot be trusted to write an honest story” (Grynbaum, 2025). Finally, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee called to defund public broadcasting companies such as NPR and PBS for their perceived liberal bias and “brainwashing and trans-ing children,” as Republican Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed (Scott, 2025). Though these are only three of many examples, each coincides with the Trump administration’s tumultuous relationship with mass media and willingness to push the boundaries of press freedoms.
Media Coverage and Trump’s Demagoguery
The root of the free press’ instability may be Trump’s approach to demagoguery. Demagogues, charismatic and dishonest individuals whose power derives from manipulation, exploitation, playing victim to political elites, and aggressive attempts to deconstruct institutions posed as threats to their power, do not compliment the democratic process of a free press for more than one reason (Seyb, 2022, p. 199). First, Trump poses his messages as the objectively correct thinking rationale, framing it as a “common sense” ideology (Young, 2025). Common sense, as it relates exclusively to Trump’s political approach, not only creates a definitive vacuum for truth but also eliminates the demand for inquiry (Ward, 2019, p.4). It suggests that knowledge as such is universally accepted and philosophies that deviate from Trump’s common sense are radical outliers framed as enemies to the ideal American population. By this logic, Trump is pursuing a Cronkite-like symbol of truth as consensus (Shirky, 2013, p. 16).
Consensus among his constituents is the crux of Trump’s scheme to political power. His cabinet appointees are loyalists deeply invested in his mission. Shirky (2013) posits that “evidence of consensus is seen as evidence of truth, and lack of consensus signals an unsettled truth” (p. 11). In order to achieve consensus, however, critical opposition must be eliminated. Trump’s pattern of contesting his highest platformed critics, mainstream media, is a sweeping attempt to muzzle notions of reality contradictory to that of which he professes. The ideal result is unquestioned rationality equipped with an empirical methodology that mirrors reality (Christians, 2019, p. 138).
One notoriously common of Trump’s tropes is less about setting an agenda but combatting the opposition. For example, during his first address to Congress, he compulsively insulted former President Joe Biden, whom he blamed for the country’s prominent issues (Piper, 2025). Regardless of who to blame, casting these problems onto his predecessor, who lacked a response, deflects the notion that the new administration represents failure but is diligently reconciling the disorder caused by the previous administration. However, Trump’s most elusive and pluralistic opposition is indeed non-conservative news media. Typically, he initially identifies liberal media bias as his counteract but then aims to delegitimize these outlets to reduce threats to his aspiring consensus (Lichter, 2017, p.7). Meanwhile, organizations producing negative coverage of the president are antagonized for the nature in which he is portrayed and because the content disrupts Trump’s populist narrative. The former, though a right protected by free speech laws, explains Trump’s past threats to modify libel laws to accommodate his ability to sue news media (Jones & West, 2017, p. 591). The latter directly applies to the AP’s refusal to adhere to its style guide to Trump’s preference.
The New Complicated Press Pool
While the AP seemingly found hope in Judge McFadden’s orders for restored access despite the White House’s defiance, it is unclear what legal actions may ensue and how the press pool may function. The White House claimed that the AP requested special access to events, which the judge debunked as he acknowledged the request was for an equal playing field (Montague, 2025). Though the tactic appears to be a constitutional loophole, the White House included AP journalists in pooling. However, it excluded its wire service from the three-wire rotation with Reuters and Bloomberg and eventually excluded all three. Lawyer for the Justice Department Brian Hudak argued that “the White House had not categorically banned The Associated Press because it had since allowed its photographers in to capture the president on a few occasions” (Montague, 2025). In this sense, the AP is protected by First Amendment law, but it does not ensure its privilege to attend White House events.
Viewpoint discrimination originally contrived this lawsuit, and while the WHCA exists as a group separate from the White House, it is seemingly powerless, given that the White House seized control of the pool. Leavitt has said the aforementioned moves intend to “expand access by bringing in smaller digital publications alongside the legacy media outlets that have long dominated the press corps” (Montague, 2025). As a result of a superficially neutral approach, an assortment of alt-right Conservative media outlets, such as Real America’s Voice, The Daily Wire, Breitbart, and War Room, entered the briefing room (Ward, 2025). By shifting the ideological environment of the press briefing room, Trump delegitimizes media organizations such as the AP and recruits those who recapitulate the common sense ideology as his objective reality. Natalie Winters, War Room White House correspondent, furthers this notion as she stated, “In some ways, the revulsion to the new media people being there [stems from the] fact that we’re like a mirror, a reflection of the fact that they’re dying” (Ward, 2025).
While trust in media is alarmingly low, Trump’s authoritative operation attacks media vulnerabilities. It is also worth mentioning that the First Amendment does not protect news media from the process of pursuing information (Jones & West, 2017, p. 591). According to Seyb (2022), “The demagogue thus must find a way to turn “heterogeneous opinion” into a “homogeneous vote” for them. The key to performing this alchemical feat is to trigger feelings people have about the environment that are particularly intense but, because they are generated at a distance from reality, do not have a basis in fact” (p. 202). Truth becomes sensitive to news media consumers when trust is compromised. Trump’s rhetoric aims to approximate them closer to the truth, placing ultimate trust in the objective reality he proclaims. His campaign narratives portrayed certainty, and his executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico positioned him as a messianic figure with an America-first philosophy. Additionally, despite the resulting legal actions, Trump justified his potential attacks on those who neglect such executive orders to affirm his perceived unwavering power and authority.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung called the lawsuit “a blatant PR stunt masquerading as a First Amendment case” (Goudsward, 2025). The AP’s lawsuit, as it appears, intends to preserve the outlet’s editorial rights. Pure defiance from the AP means it would still refer to Mt. McKinley as Denali, but the change coincided with its editorial standards. The initial reaction to filing a lawsuit may apply to Schudson’s (2007) notion that “No good deed, it seems, is likely to go unpunished by the media when it is performed by a politician, any politician, whose motives are almost exclusively electoral, who is surrounded by “handlers” and pollsters who calculate even transitory symbolic gestures” (p. 137).
Conclusion
Seyb (2022) posits, “Donald Trump’s presidency and his continued influence on—some commentators would argue “leadership of”—the Republican Party offer a good opportunity to revisit Mannheim’s ‘new type of objectivity,’ an approach that has the potential to combat the ritualistic commitment to the procedure that discourages journalists from acting on the intuition, judgment, and sensitivity to their environments they have learned by practicing their craft” (p. 207). While the future is unclear for the press pool, the AP, and the White House, it is worth noting that this lawsuit underscored the AP’s solidarity for editorial Freedom and rightful treatment by the government. Additionally, Trump’s intolerant efforts to achieve media hegemony and consensus are by-products of unabashed demagoguery. Lastly, Trump’s mass silencing of “liberal media bias” on illegitimate requisites is, at large, an anti-democratic wielding of power, which will ultimately never reach unanimity in a pluralistic American democracy.
Citations
Associated Press Stylebook. (2025, January 30). Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of America. https://www-apstylebook-com.libdata.lib.ua.edu/ua_edu/ap_stylebook
Barr, J., & Vasquez, M. (2025, April 16). White House eliminates permanent spots for news services in press pool. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/04/15/ap-reporter-permitted-white-house-ban/
Bauder, D. (2025, February 15). AP journalists barred from Air Force One over ‘Gulf of Mexico’ naming dispute. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-journalists-barred-from-air-force-one-over-gulf-of-mexico-naming-dispute
Christians, C. G. (2019). Media ethics and global justice in the digital age. Cambridge University Press.
Condon Jr., G.E. (2025, February 25). White House wrests control over pool coverage away from reporters. National Journal. https://www-nationaljournal-com.libdata.lib.ua.edu/s/727673/white-house-wrests-control-of-pool-coverage-away-from-reporters/
Constitution Annotated | congress.gov | Library of Congress. (n.d.). Amdt1.9.1 Overview of Freedom of the Press. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-3-1/ALDE_00000395/
Epstein, K. (2025, April 22). Judge halts Trump’s shut down of Voice of America. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jz58zjllzo
Goudsward, A. (2025, February 21). AP sues Trump aides for restricting access over Gulf of Mexico name. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ap-sues-trump-aides-restricting-access-over-gulf-mexico-name-2025-02-21/
Grynbaum, M. (2018, November 9). Trump threatens to retaliate against reporters who don’t show ‘respect.’ The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/business/media/trump-retaliation-reporters-april-ryan.html
Grynbaum, M. (2025, April 8). Pronouns in bio? You may not get a response from the White House. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/08/business/media/white-house-journalists-pronouns.html
Haberman, M., & Robertson, K. (2025, February 12). AP accuses White House of violating the First Amendment. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/business/media/associated-press-gulf-of-america.html
Jones, R. A., & West, S. R. (2017). The Fragility of the Free American Press. Northwestern University Law Review, 112(3), 567–595.
Montague, Z. (2025, April 8). White House must allow the Associated Press full access to Trump, judge rules. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/08/us/politics/trump-ap-oval-office-access.html
Pace, J. (2025, March 26). The AP’s freedom of speech – and yours. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-aps-freedom-of-speech-and-yours-gulf-of-mexico-trump-suit-754cda60
Piper, J. (2025, March 4). Trump mentioned Joe Biden at least 16 times tonight. Politico. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/04/trump-joint-address-to-congress/trump-biden-mentions-00212915
Schudson, M. (2007). The Concept of Politics in Contemporary U.S. Journalism. Political Communication, 24(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701312845
Scott, L. (2025, March 26). NPR and PBS leaders face grilling before House DOGE subcommittee. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org/news/npr-and-pbs-leaders-face-grilling-before-house-doge-subcommittee.php
Sedensky, M. (2025, February 24). Judge won’t immediately restore Associated Press’ access to White House press pool. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-wont-immediately-restore-associated-press-access-to-white-house
Seyb, R. P. (2022). The Journalist and the Manipulator: Walter Lippmann, Karl Mannheim, and the Case for a “New Objectivity” to Check Demagoguery. American Journalism, 39(2), 196–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/08821127.2022.2064362
Ward, S. J. A. (2019). Objectivity and bias in journalism. In J. F. Nussmaum (Ed.) Oxford encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press. https://oxfordre.com/communication/
Ward, I. (2025, April 22). Meet the 8 MAGA outlets disrupting the White House briefing room. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/22/trump-white-house-briefing-correspondents-natalie-winters-00290063
White House Correspondents’ Association. (2025, April 15). Statement on WH changes to wire pool positions. https://whca.press/2025/04/15/statement-on-wh-changes-to-wire-pool-positions/Young, D. (2025, February 6). How populist leaders like Trump use ‘common sense’ as an ideological weapon to undermine facts. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-populist-leaders-like-trump-use-common-sense-as-an-ideological-weapon-to-undermine-facts-248608
cole manasco 