Gulf of Mexico?

LOS ANGELES -  Associated Press called it the “Gulf of Mexico.” The White House called it un-American and shut them out.

The question now: does the decision to block a major news outlet over a wording dispute cross a constitutional line? 

A federal judge originally ruled in favor of AP, but then a three-judge panel on the appeals court hit pause on that, backing the president instead. In mid-July, a full panel of that same appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, declined to lift the three-judge ruling. 

So, for now - unless the Supreme Court steps in - the White House can legally block AP from Oval Office press events and any other spaces it controls, like Air Force One.

At issue is not just the First Amendment but how to assess when and where journalists do their jobs – and, indeed, in an age of digital communication, how they do it. 

The backdrop: 

After an AP reporter referred to the “Gulf of Mexico” during a routine Oval Office briefing, the outlet was barred from attending certain press gatherings.

What happened, precisely?

On Feb. 11, an AP reporter referred to the Gulf of Mexico. This came after Trump signed Executive Order 14172 (“Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness”) on Jan. 20 and proclaimed Feb. 9 as the first-ever “Gulf of America Day.”

According to AP, its reporters were barred from a Feb. 11 White House event, an evening reception held in the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room and subsequent events.

On Feb. 14, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich posted on X: “The Associated Press continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change of the Gulf of America. This decision is not just divisive, but it also exposes The Associated Press’ commitment to misinformation.”

AP spokesperson Lauren Easton responded that same day: “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.”

AP brought suit, seeking to restore its access.

On April 8, 2025, a lower court judge, Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary injunction ordering the White House to restore AP's access, saying the ban likely violated the First Amendment and constituted “viewpoint-based exclusion.” 

AP’s argument: government retaliation against a journalist for using a globally recognized geographic term isn't just censorship – it’s viewpoint discrimination, implicating the First Amendment.

Why the AP says this matters: 

The Gulf of Mexico is not a partisan term. It’s a geographic fact. To ban a reporter for using it is to penalize truth - and ultimately “chips away” at the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and press.

Indeed, on Feb. 11, AP News issued a statement saying, “It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism. Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment.”

The First Amendment implies that government actors cannot punish speech based on disagreement with its content or viewpoint. AP argues that naming a historical body of water does not fall outside the guidelines for limiting press briefing access.

Instead, it argues, banning a journalist for word choice amounts to retaliation for protected speech - something the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down.

In CNN vs. Trump, decided five years ago, the network’s Jim Acosta had his credentials revoked after sparring with Trump at a press conference. A federal court ruled the revocation violated due process and raised First Amendment concerns, ordering the White House to reinstate his pass.

Unlike Acosta, AP reporters weren’t confrontational. They simply referred to a well-known body of water by its name.

In 2019, in Knight First Amendment Institute vs. Trump, the president blocked critics from his Twitter account. The court ruled he couldn’t exclude people from a public forum just because he didn’t like what they said.

Media advocates, including the White House Correspondents’ Association and PEN America, have warned that allowing bans based on editorial style creates a dangerous precedent - not only for press freedom but for public access to truthful reporting. 

On Feb. 11, Eugene Daniels, president of the White House Correspondents Association, posted on X, "The White House cannot dictate how news organizations report the news, nor should it penalize working journalists because it is unhappy with their editors' decisions."

Tim Richardson of Pen America released a public statement on Feb. 12 that said, “Barring AP journalists from an official presidential event because of the news outlet’s editorial decisions is an affront to the First Amendment and a free press. It is retribution, plain and simple, and a shameful attempt to bully the press into ideological compliance.”

The First Amendment protects “freedom of speech, or of the press.” Thus a central question: can the government punish speech it disagrees with, even, perhaps particularly, at the White House?

AP’s challenge comes as, across the country, students and faculty have faced discipline for speech that challenges institutional orthodoxy.

In 2021’s Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, a college student was stopped from sharing religious literature in a free speech zone. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor - reinforcing that even small or symbolic violations of free speech rights are constitutionally significant.

Like campuses, the AP’s argument is that the White House is a publicly funded and publicly accountable institution - not a private club - and thus it cannot sidestep First Amendment protections simply because certain language makes it uncomfortable. 

Even if it's not a traditional public forum, it is still government property, where selective access based on viewpoint would seem to raise serious constitutional concerns.

In an appeals court decision on June 6, though, the three-judge panel held the Trump Administration could bar AP – or, for that matter, anyone. 

Its reasoning: the Oval Office, in particular, is a private space, and therefore, “when access to government property is very limited, considerations of viewpoint may be permissible.”

As the New York Times reported, AP spokesman Patrick Maks said in a statement prompted by that ruling: “We are disappointed by today’s procedural decision but remain focused on the strong district court opinion in support of free speech as we have our case heard.”

Administration spokesman Harrison Fields responded: “We applaud the Court’s decision to effectively end The Associated Press’s baseless lawsuit against President Trump. A.P.’s outrageous, self-absorbed actions are an embarrassment to journalism. The Trump Administration is the most accessible and transparent in history.”

Is it?

By allowing “viewpoint-based exclusions”, as the appeals court has done, the danger is that this opens the door to subjective interpretation and cracks in the constitutional framework. What speech, exactly, can now be justifiably barred, and where?

That isn’t about geography. It’s about power.