First Amendment on the Line: AP Returns to Court After White House Renames 'Gulf of Mexico' 'Gulf of America'

The Associated Press is headed back to the D.C. appeals court as its First Amendment dispute with the White House continues after President Trump issued an executive order renaming the "Gulf of Mexico" the "Gulf of America." The agency continued to use the established name while noting the administration's renaming, and the White House responded by limiting the AP's access to presidential settings.

AP senior vice president and executive editor Julie Pace says the fight goes beyond one outlet: it is about whether the government may retaliate against journalists — or any American — for the words they use. Pace emphasized the AP's global audience as a core reason the organization maintained the traditional name.

Timeline and legal posture

President Trump signed the renaming order on the first day of a second-term presidency. After the AP declined to substitute the new term in its reporting, the White House barred the agency from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other sensitive locations. In April, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled that barring the AP in apparent retaliation violated the First Amendment. The administration appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily stayed McFadden's order pending review.

Both sides are scheduled to appear before the appeals court for a critical hearing that will decide whether the lower-court ruling — described by its supporters as a robust defense of the First Amendment — will stand.

Why the AP kept "Gulf of Mexico"

Pace explained that as an international news organization operating in nearly 100 countries, the AP must use language with the widest possible application. Many audiences outside the United States continue to use the long-established name, and AP style aims for clarity and global consistency while noting the administration's official action.

"As a global news organization, we have to use language that has the widest possible application. That's Gulf of Mexico in this case," Pace said.

She framed the litigation as defending a broader principle: if the government can punish a news outlet for word choice, it could similarly punish any citizen for their speech. Pace noted the stakes extend beyond the press, particularly for journalists working in countries where reporting can carry severe consequences.

White House position

The White House argues it has discretion over who receives access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other restricted venues. A White House spokesperson described recent changes to the press pool as modernization of access that reflects contemporary media habits and defended the administration's decision to enforce the new geographic name.

Supporters of the White House stance contend that constitutional protection of speech does not automatically create an entitlement to privileged access to limited government spaces. A former administration official wrote publicly that protected reporting does not guarantee "unfettered access" to those locations.

What to watch at the hearing

The appeals court will consider whether the White House's action amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, or whether the administration's managerial discretion in granting access to sensitive presidential spaces permits its response. The decision could set a significant precedent for how far government officials may go in conditioning access on language and viewpoint.

The hearing marks a pivotal moment for press access and free-speech protections in the United States, with implications for news organizations and the public's ability to receive information from the presidency.