WSJ Opinion: The AP's First Amendment Stance Seems 'Flimsy'

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled "Is the Associated Press Tired of Losing? Trump Wins the First Round in the Wire Service’s Flimsy First Amendment Case" comments on the legal battle between the Associated Press (AP) and the Trump administration, specifically related to press access and First Amendment rights. 

The article by WSJ Editorial Features Editor James Taranto focuses on a federal judge’s decision this week to deny the AP’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have forced the White House to restore the news agency’s special access to presidential events. 

The access, which included coverage opportunities in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One, was revoked after the AP refused to adopt the administration’s directive to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America" in its reporting. The Trump administration argued that this access was a privilege, not a right, and that the AP wasn’t being banned from coverage entirely—just stripped of its preferential treatment. The AP, in response, filed a lawsuit claiming this restriction violated its First Amendment rights, framing it as an attempt to punish the outlet for its editorial independence.

The Wall Street Journal’s take casts a skeptical eye on the AP’s legal argument, calling it "flimsy" and implying that the wire service overestimated its constitutional protections. The judge’s ruling favored Trump in this initial skirmish, declining to reinstate the AP’s access, possibly on the grounds that no legal precedent guarantees a news outlet permanent, privileged status in White House press pools. The WSJ argued that the AP’s case rested more on tradition than on a solid First Amendment foundation, and that the administration’s move, while aggressive, didn’t outright censor the AP—just leveled the playing field with other outlets.

The article suggests a jab at the AP’s persistence—or stubbornness—in challenging Trump.