President Donald J. Trump has secured yet another legal triumph — this time over a legacy media outlet notorious for its partisan bias.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the Trump White House, pausing a lower court’s order that would have forced the administration to grant Associated Press reporters access to high-level events such as Oval Office meetings and Air Force One briefings.

The 2-1 ruling is a blow to the mainstream press, which has tried to paint President Trump’s administration as hostile to “freedom of the press” — when in reality, it is simply enforcing discretion over who gets access to some of the most sensitive areas of government.

At the heart of the dispute is the AP’s bizarre decision to refuse to adopt the “Gulf of America” naming convention in place of the outdated “Gulf of Mexico,” a change that President Trump announced earlier this year to reflect American sovereignty and energy leadership. The AP alleged its exclusion from White House press events was retaliation, calling it a First Amendment violation.

But legal counsel for the administration argued, persuasively, that the President of the United States retains full authority to determine which journalists are granted access, especially in controlled environments like the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist’s prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,” Trump’s legal team wrote in its briefing.

Despite the AP's dramatic claims and multiple complaints filed after their exclusion, the D.C. Circuit Court rejected the idea that White House media spaces constitute public forums subject to forced inclusion.

“The White House is likely to succeed on the merits,” the ruling declared, emphasizing that these are not First Amendment-protected public spaces. “The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.”

The court went further, affirming that enforcing the lower court’s injunction would cause “irreparable harm” to the Executive Branch by undermining the president’s control over his private and professional workspaces.

Still, the professional grievance industry kicked into overdrive. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) attacked the decision, calling it “flawed” and issuing dire warnings about “viewpoint discrimination.”

“The D.C. Circuit’s flawed reasoning allows the White House to get away with blatant viewpoint discrimination against media outlets it doesn’t like,” the group claimed on X.

But FIRE’s position ignores the obvious: the First Amendment doesn’t require the White House to roll out the red carpet for media outlets pushing partisan narratives or disrespecting America’s elected leadership. This is especially true when those outlets refuse to abide by new standards set by the administration.

Back in February, President Trump was crystal clear on the issue:

“We’re going to keep them out until such time that they agree that it’s the Gulf of America,” he told reporters.
“I do think that some of the phrases they want to use are ridiculous, and I think, frankly, they’ve become obsolete.”

With this latest ruling, the court has reaffirmed that the presidency is not obligated to provide a platform for media outlets that operate more like opposition research firms than neutral news organizations.

As President Trump continues his second term, the administration has made it clear: Access is a privilege — not a right — and it will be granted to those who demonstrate respect for the office and for the country.