On February 25, the news-analytical portal SPNEWS and pro-government expert Gia Abashidze spread information stating that a federal judge did not grant the Associated Press’s lawsuit. The case concerns the White House revoking the media outlet’s accreditation because the Associated Press continued referring to the Gulf of America as the Gulf of Mexico. The circulated information also claims that the judge dismissed the media’s lawsuit and stated, “Revoking media accreditation at the White House is not a restriction of free speech but rather the removal of a privilege, as being near the president in his office, on his plane, or in other restricted spaces is merely a privilege.” 
The information regarding the judge’s ruling in the Associated Press case is partially misleading. In reality, the judge denied a request by the Associated Press to immediately restore full access to presidential events but urged the White House to reconsider its imposed restriction. Furthermore, the statement about accreditation being merely a privilege, rather than a restriction on free speech, was not made by the judge but by the White House itself.
In January, Donald Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. In response, Associated Press (AP) said that while they acknowledge the legal validity of this decision, they would continue referring to it as the Gulf of Mexico in their articles because the new name may confuse readers. As a result, from early February, the White House banned AP from meeting and listening to the president and several top government officials, which meant that AP journalists were no longer permitted to attend press conferences, interviews, or other events held at the White House, aboard the president’s plane, or in other official locations. In response, AP filed a lawsuit against several White House officials, demanding the revocation of this ban.
On February 24, federal judge Trevor McFadden, who was appointed by Donald Trump, issued a ruling in the Associated Press case, in which he stated that he would not mandate the White House to immediately lift the imposed ban and allow AP journalists to attend presidential events. In his view, the media outlet failed to sufficiently prove that it had suffered irreparable harm as a result. However, he urged the White House to reconsider its decision, as case law was not helpful to the White House. McFadden also discussed the White House Correspondents’ Association, which is not a government agency but is responsible for determining who is granted accreditation to attend presidential events. The judge noted that he found it somewhat unclear why the White House was obligated to comply with the decisions of this private organization. However, he later said that since the White House had voluntarily agreed to grant the association this authority, it was now bound to follow its decisions and, by blocking AP, was engaging in a discriminatory policy.
Social media posts also falsely claimed that the judge stated in his ruling that being near the president is a privilege, not a right, and that revoking media accreditation does not constitute a violation of rights but rather the removal of a privilege. In reality, this statement was not made by Judge McFadden but by the White House. It was written in an official statement and highlighted in an article by Fox News, which was cited by Abashidze. The statement from the Trump administration reads, “As we have said from the beginning, asking the president of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.” Notably, in the video attached to the social media post, this same statement (with slight paraphrasing) was also reiterated by White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt, who emphasized that both she and Trump had also made similar remarks in the past.
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
