Key Takeaways:

• A US federal judge has upheld the ban on the Associated Press (AP) by the Trump administration over the use of the term "Gulf of America."
• The AP has been restricted from accessing key presidential events after refusing to change its coverage to comply with an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico.
• Judge Trevor McFadden urged the White House to reconsider the ban, suggesting it was potentially discriminatory under First Amendment rights.

In a recent ruling, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, appointed by President Trump, declined to restore full access to the Associated Press journalists following a dispute revolving around the agency's refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America." This ban has left AP reporters unable to cover significant presidential events, such as those aboard Air Force One and within the White House.

The tensions arose after Trump signed an executive order mandating the name change early in his administration. In response, the AP maintained its commitment to use the longstanding name "Gulf of Mexico," citing its responsibility as a global news agency to adhere to established nomenclature. "The Constitution prevents the president of the United States or any other government official from coercing journalists or anyone else into using official government vocabulary to report the news," asserted Charles Tobin, a lawyer representing the AP, during the court proceedings.

Although the judge ruled against the AP’s request for an immediate injunction, he acknowledged during the hearing that case law has typically been unfavorable to government efforts restricting access to journalists. The White House, however, defended its position, asserting that access to the president is a privilege, not a right. White House officials have labeled the AP’s lawsuit as a "blatant PR stunt," and claimed that their ban is a means of ensuring journalists are held accountable for perceived biases in reporting.

Critics of the ban, including the White House Correspondents' Association and several press freedom organizations, argue that it serves to chill and distort news coverage of the president, thereby infringing upon First Amendment rights. They have expressed concerns that restricting access to the AP could undermine the public’s right to know about the government’s actions. Following the ruling, calls for the Trump administration to reconsider its stance have amplified, highlighting the precarious balance between government press access and press freedom rights.

The situation continues to develop, with expectations for an expedited hearing set for March 20. Both sides involved in this contentious dispute remain poised for further legal battles, each asserting their vision of press freedom and governmental accountability.

For further details, visit the original articles from BBC, HuffPost, NPR, and others.