In a federal courtroom Monday afternoon, a significant legal battle unfolded as The Associated Press (AP) pressed its case against three staff members of President Donald Trump's administration. The news agency is seeking to reverse the Trump administration’s decision to bar AP journalists from attending presidential events, including access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other areas traditionally part of the White House press pool.
The crux of the dispute lies in the AP's refusal to adopt President Trump's renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America." The AP insists on using the traditional "Gulf of Mexico" terminology, explaining that its audience is global and that the body of water extends beyond U.S. territory. Nonetheless, the news agency has acknowledged Trump's renaming, emphasizing its stance as a matter of journalistic integrity and global relevance.
At the heart of the AP’s argument is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which safeguards freedom of speech. The White House, on the other hand, contends that access to the president is a privilege, not a right. Trump himself told reporters just last week, "We're going to keep them out until such time as they agree that it's the Gulf of America."
AP’s legal team claims that the ban, which appears to have originated directly from President Trump, is an infringement on their First Amendment rights. Gabe Rottman, a senior attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the AP, described the situation as "viewpoint discrimination." He further emphasized that this type of discrimination is particularly prohibited under the First Amendment, calling it “poison to a free society."
Judge McFadden, who presided over the hearing, expressed significant concern, raising several questions that pointed to the fact that the ban could indeed be seen as an infringement on freedom of speech, making the case a landmark one for press freedom.
The budget office under President Donald Trump reversed a memo on Wednesday that had temporarily frozen spending on federal loans and grants, just two days after it caused widespread confusion and legal disputes across the nation.
The memo, issued Monday by the Office of Management and Budget, had alarmed states, schools, and organizations dependent on billions of dollars in federal funding. Administration officials initially claimed the pause was necessary to review whether spending aligned with Trump’s executive orders on issues such as climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
However, by Wednesday, officials issued a brief notice rescinding the original memo. This reversal highlighted the challenges Trump faces in swiftly reshaping the government, even with unified control of Washington.
Administration officials maintained that despite the confusion, their actions had achieved the intended goal of reminding federal agencies of their obligation to comply with Trump’s executive orders. Still, the vaguely worded directive, temporary freeze, and subsequent cancellation left many organizations uncertain and anxious about what might come next.
Nourishing Hope, a Chicago-based organization operating food pantries, home meal delivery, and an online food market, relies on federal funding for about 20% of its food budget. CEO Kellie O’Connell expressed that the primary challenge when the memo surfaced was obtaining clear and accurate information to plan for the months ahead.
O’Connell noted that while her organization could manage for a few weeks without federal funds, the broader concern was the potential reduction or elimination of assistance programs like food stamps, which would significantly increase demand for their services. “If that were to significantly diminish or get eliminated, it would be nearly impossible for the charity food system to step up,” she said. “It would be potentially catastrophic for our communities.”
On Tuesday, Trump administration officials clarified that programs providing direct assistance to Americans, such as Medicare, Social Security, student loans, and food stamps, would not be affected by the freeze. However, they faced difficulties in providing consistent and clear information. For instance, officials initially hesitated to confirm whether Medicaid was exempt before later clarifying that it was.
The White House’s abrupt shift in direction surprised Congress, including Trump’s Republican allies, who had defended the administration during the brief controversy. The episode underscored the complexities and limitations of implementing rapid, sweeping changes to federal spending and policy.
A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order denying U.S. citizenship to the children of parents living in the country illegally, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” during the first hearing in a multi-state effort challenging the order.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution promises citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, a measure ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for former slaves after the Civil War. But in an effort to curb unlawful immigration, Trump issued the executive order just after being sworn in for his second term on Monday.
The order would deny citizenship to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It also forbids U.S. agencies from issuing any document or accepting any state document recognizing citizenship for such children.Trump’s order drew immediate legal challenges across the country, with at least five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups. A lawsuit brought by Washington, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois was the first to get a hearing.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour told a Justice Department attorney. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
Thursday’s decision prevents the Trump administration from taking steps to implement the executive order for 14 days. In the meantime, the parties will submit further arguments about the merits of Trump’s order. Coughenour scheduled a hearing on Feb. 6 to decide whether to block it long term as the case proceeds.
Coughenour, 84, a Ronald Reagan appointee who was nominated to the federal bench in 1981, grilled the DOJ attorney, Brett Shumate, asking whether Shumate personally believed the order was constitutional.
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” he added.
Shumate assured the judge he did — “absolutely.” He said the arguments the Trump administration is making now have never previously been litigated, and that there was no reason to issue a 14-day temporary restraining order when it would expire before the executive order takes effect.
The Department of Justice later said in a statement that it will “vigorously defend” the president’s executive order, which it said “correctly interprets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
“We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation’s laws enforced,” the department said.
The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War, to ensure citizenship for former slaves and free African Americans. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Arguing for the states on Thursday, Washington assistant attorney general Lane Polozola called that “absurd,” noting that neither those who have immigrated illegally nor their children are immune from U.S. law.
“Are they not subject to the decisions of the immigration courts?” Polozola asked. “Must they not follow the law while they are here?”
Polozola also said the restraining order was warranted because, among other reasons, the executive order would immediately start requiring the states to spend millions to revamp health care and benefits systems to reconsider an applicant’s citizenship status.
