LACK OF JUDICIAL COURAGE GETS AP BACK IN WHITEHOUSE PRESSPOOL

SCARED OF THE AP OR IT'S MASTER? HIDE BEHIND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

In a ruling that was as predictable as it was performative, a federal judge recently ordered the White House to reinstate the Associated Press’s access to press briefings—claiming the decision was necessary to uphold the First Amendment.

The reality? It was a textbook example of judicial self-preservation, not constitutional courage.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The Associated Press, once a respected wire service, has devolved into a de facto messaging arm of the Democratic Party. From suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election, to manufacturing moral panics over Trump’s policies, to running soft-focus coverage on Joe Biden while gaslighting the nation over his cognitive decline, the AP has been anything but neutral.

Yet when the Trump administration finally called it what it is—a partisan outfit peddling narrative under the guise of news—and took the rational step of limiting its privileged access to the West Wing, the court predictably swooped in with an emergency First Amendment lecture.

Cue the high-minded rhetoric about “viewpoint discrimination” and “press freedom.”

But here’s what the judge didn’t address:

• The fact that the AP isn’t being censored. They can write whatever they want. They just don’t get a VIP pass to White House events after years of adversarial behavior.

• The fact that in the 21st century, the public doesn’t need a wire service to hear from their president. The White House can—and does—communicate directly with the people via livestreams, social media, and official releases.

• The fact that access to press briefings is not some birthright of legacy media, but a privilege extended on the assumption of professional integrity and objectivity—both of which the AP has squandered.

• 
  

This wasn’t a defense of the Constitution. It was a defense of the establishment—of media institutions that shield Democrats, sabotage Republicans, and then hide behind the First Amendment when finally held to account.

And the judge? He chose the easy route. Instead of grappling with the complex, messy reality that much of the legacy press now operates more like a political action committee than a watchdog, he clung to outdated precedent and a shallow interpretation of press freedom.

Why? Because it's safer.

He knew that ruling against the AP would bring howls of “fascism,” “dictatorship,” and “assault on democracy.” He knew the appellate courts would be weaponized. He knew his name would be dragged through headlines curated by the very outlets at the center of the issue.

So he played it safe. He waved the First Amendment flag while ignoring the elephant in the room: press access is not press freedom, and privileged platforms should come with some expectation of integrity.

If the AP wants to be treated like a news outlet, it should act like one. Until then, the White House has every right to protect itself—and the American people—from legacy institutions that have proven time and again that their loyalty lies not with the truth, but with the political machine they serve.

This ruling wasn’t judicial bravery.

It was ideological cover fire.