Trump Bans AP Over 'Gulf of America' Standoff, Ignites Media War

Paul Riverbank, 2/18/2025Trump bans AP from White House events over refusal to use "Gulf of America" name.

The controversy ignited when President Trump issued an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" — a change that the Associated Press has notably refused to adopt, citing the water body's 400-year history under its original name.

The White House's response was swift and decisive. AP journalists found themselves blocked from accessing the Oval Office and Air Force One, though they retain their general White House credentials. This partial ban represents a significant shift in the traditional relationship between the presidency and one of America's most established news organizations.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich framed the dispute in broader terms, telling Axios, "This isn't just about the Gulf of America. This is about AP weaponizing language through their stylebook to push a partisan worldview in contrast with the traditional and deeply held beliefs of many Americans and many people around the world."

The administration's stance reflects long-standing conservative criticisms of the AP Stylebook — a standard-setting guide for American journalism that has increasingly become a flashpoint in cultural debates. Critics point to the AP's selective adaptation of terminology, including its decisions to capitalize "Black" but not "white" when referring to race, and its guidance on gender-related language.

The dispute has exposed what many see as inconsistencies in the AP's approach to name changes. While the organization has readily adopted changes like "Kyiv" instead of "Kiev" for Ukraine's capital, its resistance to the Gulf of America designation has raised questions about the criteria for such decisions.

The White House has seized this opportunity to reshape media access, with Budowich announcing that the space "will now be opened up to the many thousands of reporters who have been barred from covering these intimate areas of the administration."

Legal experts anticipate potential court challenges — similar to CNN reporter Jim Acosta's successful 2018 lawsuit against the Trump administration over press credentials. However, the White House maintains that while the AP's right to report is protected by the First Amendment, "it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces."

This confrontation emerges against a backdrop of broader tensions between traditional media outlets and the Trump administration, with both sides accusing the other of partisan bias. The dispute has become a lightning rod for debates about media objectivity, editorial discretion and the role of style guides in shaping public discourse.

As other news organizations consider whether to boycott White House events in solidarity with the AP, the administration's decision has created a complex calculus for media outlets — weighing professional solidarity against the risk of ceding their access to alternative news organizations.

In an unprecedented move that highlights growing tensions between the media and the White House, the Trump administration has barred the Associated Press from key White House events over what began as a dispute about geographical nomenclature but has evolved into a broader criticism of media bias.The controversy ignited when President Trump issued an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" — a change that the Associated Press has notably refused to adopt, citing the water body's 400-year history under its original name.The White House's response was swift and decisive. AP journalists found themselves blocked from accessing the Oval Office and Air Force One, though they retain their general White House credentials. This partial ban represents a significant shift in the traditional relationship between the presidency and one of America's most established news organizations.White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich framed the dispute in broader terms, telling Axios, "This isn't just about the Gulf of America. This is about AP weaponizing language through their stylebook to push a partisan worldview in contrast with the traditional and deeply held beliefs of many Americans and many people around the world."The administration's stance reflects long-standing conservative criticisms of the AP Stylebook — a standard-setting guide for American journalism that has increasingly become a flashpoint in cultural debates. Critics point to the AP's selective adaptation of terminology, including its decisions to capitalize "Black" but not "white" when referring to race, and its guidance on gender-related language.The dispute has exposed what many see as inconsistencies in the AP's approach to name changes. While the organization has readily adopted changes like "Kyiv" instead of "Kiev" for Ukraine's capital, its resistance to the Gulf of America designation has raised questions about the criteria for such decisions.The White House has seized this opportunity to reshape media access, with Budowich announcing that the space "will now be opened up to the many thousands of reporters who have been barred from covering these intimate areas of the administration."Legal experts anticipate potential court challenges — similar to CNN reporter Jim Acosta's successful 2018 lawsuit against the Trump administration over press credentials. However, the White House maintains that while the AP's right to report is protected by the First Amendment, "it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces."This confrontation emerges against a backdrop of broader tensions between traditional media outlets and the Trump administration, with both sides accusing the other of partisan bias. The dispute has become a lightning rod for debates about media objectivity, editorial discretion and the role of style guides in shaping public discourse.As other news organizations consider whether to boycott White House events in solidarity with the AP, the administration's decision has created a complex calculus for media outlets — weighing professional solidarity against the risk of ceding their access to alternative news organizations.