US appeals court keeps White House access limits on AP over ‘Gulf of America' dispute
The restrictions were imposed earlier this year after the AP refused to use the term 'Gulf of America' instead of the traditional 'Gulf of Mexico,' as directed by Trump in a January executive order.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined a request from the AP to reconsider a June ruling by a three-judge panel that allowed the Trump administration to limit the AP's access to events in the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other locations under White House control.
The Associated Press had argued in a lawsuit filed in February that the restrictions violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects free speech and press freedom.
Trump's administration has said the president has full discretion over which media outlets can attend White House events.
In a lower court decision, US District Judge Trevor McFadden, who was appointed by Trump, ruled in favour of the AP. He stated that if the White House allows some reporters access, it cannot block others based on their editorial choices or viewpoints.
But that order was paused in June by a 2-1 decision from a DC Circuit panel. The two judges in favour of the pause, Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, were appointed by Trump. The judge who disagreed, Cornelia Pillard, was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
Reuters noted that the AP stylebook states the name 'Gulf of Mexico' has been in use for over 400 years. The news agency said it would continue to use the name while acknowledging the president's preferred term.
Both Reuters and the AP previously criticised the access restrictions. They said these changes affect not only their coverage but also local news outlets and financial markets that depend on timely and direct reporting from White House events. The appeals court decision leaves the door open for the AP to take the case to the US Supreme Court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Donald Trump risks losing more women voters if he pardons Diddy, can spark ‘another Epstein-like situation'
Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly has fired a warning shot at Donald Trump following reports that the former president is 'seriously considering' pardoning Diddy. The disgraced music mogul's sentencing is due October and if convicted could face 20 years in prison. Trump, already under fire over the Epstein mess, with even MAGA loyalists now turning on him, risks walking into another PR disaster if he tries to spring Diddy from behind Brooklyn bars, especially after the rapper openly admitted to being a domestic abuser. Reacting to the speculation, Kelly made it clear, Trump shouldn't even think about it. She warned that such a move would backfire hard, damaging not just his campaign but the Republican party itself, especially as he continues to dodge calls to release the supposed Epstein client list. A Wall Street Journal report had earlier revealed Trump's alleged ties to Epstein, including sending him a birthday card, something Trump has denied and sued the outlet over. But now, even his own base is asking questions. As Kelly put it, 'It looks to the MAGA base like [Trump's] part of the elite cabal. And they don't like that. They elected Trump because he promised not to be one of them.' Also read: Diddy could walk free: Donald Trump 'seriously considering' pardon as disgraced mogul makes another $50M jail release plea Pardoning Diddy, Kelly says, won't fix Trump's image, it'll damage it further. 'There's already people thinking that there's a cover-up here,' she said, hinting that Diddy's infamous white parties, now under federal investigation, were more than just flashy events, but loaded with drugs, young women, and illegal activity. Kelly's warning comes at a time when Trump's female support is already disappearing. First came the abortion ban backlash, and now, if he lets Diddy walk free, she says, 'It tells all these young, vulnerable women they don't count. That they don't matter. That even the top Republican will look the other way when it comes to this kind of victim.' And it's not just liberals who are done. 'There are young conservative women who aren't in love with Trump or MAGA. And this will not help,' Kelly said, calling the whole move a 'miscarriage of justice.' What makes the situation worse is Diddy's crimes that were caught on CCTV, brutal footage from a now-shut-down hotel shows him violently attacking then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura. 'He beat those women to a pulp and didn't even deny it,' Kelly said. 'He got away with it. He was only found guilty on two minor charges… let him at least serve the time on those.' Also read: 'To deal with Donald Trump, everyone should be a little drunk,' says Stephen Colbert before bashing the US President for taking $10 million trip to Scotland Earlier, a report from Deadline suggested Diddy's case has already stirred things up inside the White House, with a few of the disgraced rapper's close allies seen hovering around, quietly trying to score him a way out after his bail plea got turned down. Diddy and his legal team have been repeatedly trying for release, even prepping a $50 million bond to get him out of jail. Trump, on his part, addressed the pardon rumours, claiming he hadn't received a formal request, but didn't exactly shut the door either. 'I'd look at what's happening,' he said. 'I haven't seen him, I haven't spoken to him in years,' he added, nodding to their past friendship. 'I would certainly look at the facts. If I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don't like me, it wouldn't have any impact.'
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Long-term investing: Volatility, even threats, have limited shelf life; 5 large-caps from different sectors with upside potential of up to 38%
Synopsis What will dominate headlines for some time? Tariff impacting X industry, goods stuck at ports, exporters under pressure, India-US talking to resolve the deadlock. Yes, the action by President Trump will create issues, but it is not the end of the world. There are a couple of reasons for our assumption that things will not be as bad as they might appear to be when you read the headlines that are bound to come in the coming weeks. You may not be aware, but the history of threats, trade, and diplomacy reveals that, finally, the last one has won.
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What Donald Trump is teaching Harvard
At Harvard you can study negotiation. This being Harvard, there is in fact an entire academic programme dedicated to the craft. The principles are simple. Understand your alternatives—what happens if you fight rather than compromise—and your long-term interests. This being Donald Trump's America, Harvard itself is now the case study. Mr Trump has turned full guns on that supposed hotbed of antisemitism and left-wing indoctrination. America's oldest and richest university would be his most satisfying trophy and its capitulation would become a template for coerced reforms across higher education. The government has sought to review some of Harvard's coursework as Mr Trump has pressured it to hire fewer 'Leftist dopes' and discipline pro-Palestine protesters. When the university refused, his administration froze federal research grants worth $3bn and tried to bar it from enrolling foreign students. Harvard has fought back and sued the government twice. Its many constituencies have loudly supported this resistance. Seven in ten faculty who took part in a poll by the Crimson, a student newspaper, said the university should not agree to a settlement. Yet it seems likely that Harvard will fold in the manner of Brown University and Columbia; reports suggest it will pay up to $500m. Consider Harvard's options. Litigation has succeeded initially: a judge paused the ban on foreign students. Harvard had a sympathetic hearing in its lawsuit to restore government funding. Yet the university knows that it cannot count on the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority. Meanwhile, the potential damage from Mr Trump's campaign looks both acute and existential. Losing federal funds would transform Harvard from a world-class research university to a tuition-dependent one. They constitute 11% of the operating budget and represent almost all the discretionary money available for research. Making do without while maintaining current spending levels would see the university draw down its $53bn endowment by about 2% a year. That is possible for a while, though it would erode future income and much of the endowment is constrained by donor restrictions anyway. Already Harvard has frozen some hiring and laid off research staff. More trouble awaits. The Internal Revenue Service is considering revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status. Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman, has suggested that the university committed securities fraud when it issued a bond in April and failed initially to tell investors about the government's demands. She wants the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate. The Department of Homeland Security has sought records about foreign students who participated in pro-Palestine protests. Alumni, faculty and students report pride in Harvard's president, Alan Garber, resisting Mr Trump's extortion scheme. Yet more and more faculty are calling for a deal, especially in medicine and science since they have the most to lose. Steven Pinker, a psychology professor, has argued for a 'face-saving exit': Mr Trump may be 'dictatorial' but 'resistance should be strategic, not suicidal'. A deal similar to Brown's would not be so hard to swallow. To restore its federal funds, that university will pay $50m to workforce-development organisations. A likelier model is the one reached with Columbia, which coughed up $200m to the government. Most of its federal funding, worth $1.3bn, was reinstated and probes into alleged civil-rights violations were closed. Viewed from the outside, the price paid by Columbia looks arbitrary—there was no explanation for how it had been calculated. Columbia also agreed to dismantle DEI initiatives and will hire faculty specialising in Israel and Judaism, among other concessions. An outside monitor will ensure compliance. Claire Shipman, the university's acting president, said Columbia had not accepted diktats about what to teach or whom to hire and admit. Maybe so, but the settlement was still a shakedown. Mr Trump skipped the legal process by which the government can cancel funds. By law the administration has to offer a hearing and submit a report to Congress at least 30 days before the cut-off takes effect. None of that happened. Of course coercive, bilateral deals are Mr Trump's métier—he has achieved them with law firms and trading partners. Harvard has been making changes on campus that may be labelled as concessions in any eventual settlement. Some do appear designed to assuage Mr Trump. Since January the university has adopted the government's preferred definition of antisemitism; ended a partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank; removed the leadership of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies; and suspended the Palestine Solidarity Committee, an undergraduate group. DEI offices have been renamed and their websites scrubbed. Harvard's lack of ideological diversity will not be fixed by fiat. In 2023 a Crimson poll found that less than 3% of faculty identified as conservative. Now the university is reportedly considering establishing a centre for conservative thought akin to Stanford's Hoover Institution. Across campus it is understood that too many students seem ill-equipped to deal with views that challenge their own, says Edward Hall, a philosophy professor. Another insight you will glean in a Harvard negotiation class is to grasp your opponent's interests. In Mr Trump's practice, this means bagging a deal and bragging about it. He wrote a whole book on the topic. It could go on a syllabus.
