Associated Press v. Budowich (2025)

James Bierre
1 day ago
4 min read

Associated Press v. Budowich (2025) is a landmark First Amendment case addressing whether the White House can exclude a major news organization from presidential events in retaliation for its editorial decisions. After the AP refused to adopt the administration’s renaming of the “Gulf of Mexico,” officials barred its reporters from access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other venues. The AP sued, arguing viewpoint discrimination. District Judge Trevor McFadden issued an injunction restoring partial access, but the D.C. Circuit limited the ruling, holding that some areas are nonpublic forums where access remains discretionary. The case raises critical questions about government retaliation, press freedom, and the scope of constitutional protections for journalists covering the presidency.

Associated Press v. Budowich (2025): When the Government Shuts the Press Out

In early 2025, the Associated Press filed a high-stakes First Amendment lawsuit against the White House after being excluded from official presidential events. The controversy centers on whether the administration may bar a major news organization from limited-access governmental spaces in retaliation for editorial decisions. The case rings at the intersection of press access, viewpoint discrimination, and executive control over media.

Background and Origins of the Dispute

The conflict began on January 20, 2025, when President Trump signed Executive Order 14172, directing federal agencies to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” The Associated Press, adhering to its editorial standards, declined to adopt the new terminology. Editors emphasized that “Gulf of Mexico” had centuries of historical use, reflected international consensus, and ensured clarity for readers worldwide.

Less than a month later, on February 11, 2025, White House officials notified the AP that its reporters would be barred from key presidential venues, including the Oval Office and Air Force One, unless the outlet complied with the directive. The restriction was unprecedented, targeting a major news organization’s access based on its editorial judgment rather than security or logistical concerns.

On February 21, 2025, the AP filed suit in federal court, naming Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and Chief of Staff Susan Wiles as defendants. The complaint charged the administration with engaging in viewpoint-based retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and with violating due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Legal Arguments and Lower Court Ruling

In district court, the Associated Press requested emergency relief through a temporary restraining order (TRO). At a February 24 hearing, Judge Trevor N. McFadden denied the request, finding that the AP had not demonstrated the kind of irreparable harm needed for an immediate injunction. Even so, McFadden noted that the White House’s conduct “seem[ed] pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination.”

The case advanced to a preliminary injunction hearing. On April 8, 2025, McFadden granted the injunction, ordering the White House to reinstate the AP’s access while the litigation continued. His opinion underscored a core First Amendment principle: once the government provides press access to certain outlets, it cannot exclude others solely because of their editorial stance.

McFadden, however, stayed his own ruling temporarily to give the administration time to appeal.

In June 2025, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a partial stay. The panel ruled that spaces such as the Oval Office and Air Force One qualify as “nonpublic forums” where the President maintains discretion over access, and therefore the First Amendment does not necessarily apply in the same way. By contrast, the panel allowed the injunction to stand with respect to the East Room, which it characterized as a more open venue for press coverage.

On July 22, 2025, the D.C. Circuit declined the AP’s petition for en banc review, leaving the panel’s decision in place.

Constitutional Stakes and Implications

At the heart of Associated Press v. Budowich is the question of whether White House press access constitutes a forum under First Amendment law, and if so, whether the government can deny entry to a news organization because of its editorial decisions. In Sherrill v. Knight (1977), the D.C. Circuit held that the White House press pool is a limited-access forum and that any denial of credentials must be based on neutral and objective criteria rather than subjective or retaliatory motives.

If courts determine that the Associated Press was excluded not for logistical or security reasons but because of disagreement with its editorial policy, that would constitute viewpoint discrimination. Such retaliation is considered a form of censorship that the First Amendment explicitly forbids. The outcome of this case could reshape the boundaries of press access in an era where executive communication is highly controlled and media interactions are carefully managed.

The D.C. Circuit’s decision to partially stay the injunction highlights the unresolved tension. Certain areas, such as the Oval Office or Air Force One, may be treated as discretionary spaces where presidential control over access is broader, while others, like the East Room, are more open and subject to greater First Amendment protections. The central challenge is defining what qualifies as viewpoint-based exclusion, a question this case seeks to clarify.

Disclaimer: The articles in the For The Writers Case Law Series are provided for educational and informational purposes only. They offer general background on landmark legal cases and their influence on free speech, civil rights, and public discourse. These materials do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Readers should consult a qualified attorney for guidance on specific legal questions. The views and interpretations expressed in the series are for informational use and do not necessarily represent the positions or opinions of For The Writers or its affiliates.