In what may initially appear as a triumph for mainstream media, the reality may not be as gratifying as anticipated.
The reason behind this paradox lies in the details of a recent court ruling.
On Tuesday, a significant legal decision was made by Judge Trevor McFadden in favor of the Associated Press (AP). The judge granted an injunction against the Trump administration's decision to bar the AP from press events in the Oval Office and the East Room.
The AP alleged that the administration had obstructed their access due to their editorial viewpoints, a claim that Judge McFadden concurred with. As reported by RedState, Kyle Cheney, Politico's Senior Political Affairs reporter, provided a detailed thread on the matter, which requires some careful interpretation.
The court ruling began by outlining the reason for the AP's exclusion. Approximately two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. The Associated Press chose not to adopt this change in their reporting. Consequently, the White House significantly reduced the AP's access to highly sought-after media events with the President. The AP subsequently filed a lawsuit against the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary, collectively referred to as "the Government." The AP sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Government from excluding them based on their viewpoint.
Judge McFadden granted this preliminary injunction, allowing the AP to return to the Oval Office and East Room press briefings for the time being. This decision likely sparked a wave of satisfaction within the Associated Press building. However, it appears that Judge McFadden may have left a loophole for the Trump administration. The ruling continues to state that the injunction does not restrict the various legitimate reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not require that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces.
The ruling further clarifies that it does not prevent government officials from selectively choosing which journalists to interview or whose questions they answer. It also does not prohibit senior officials from publicly expressing their own views. The Court merely asserts that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists, it cannot then close those doors to other journalists based on their viewpoints.
This is only a preliminary injunction, indicating that the larger battle is yet to be fought. To a lay observer, it seems apparent that the court is instructing the Trump administration to allow the AP access, but it does not mandate them to engage with the AP, answer their questions, or grant them interviews. If the AP inquires why they are being ignored, the Trump administration is not prohibited from providing a dismissive response.
This situation could potentially be more satisfying than if the judge had simply dismissed the AP's case. Imagine being an AP reporter at a White House press briefing, aware that the likelihood of the press secretary, the president, or anyone else acknowledging your presence, let alone answering a question, is slim to none. Furthermore, the possibility of ever being granted a one-on-one interview is virtually nonexistent. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will adopt this approach to effectively ostracize the AP. They may choose to be more forgiving.
However, from a conservative perspective, this ruling could be seen as a victory for the Trump administration. It emphasizes the administration's right to control access to the President and nonpublic government spaces, and to choose which journalists they interact with. This could be interpreted as a reinforcement of the administration's authority and a validation of their initial decision to limit the AP's access.
Login