From freedom fries to the Gulf of America

The Associated Press (AP) has filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, alleging unconstitutional retaliation against its journalists for refusing to adopt government-mandated language. The dispute centers on the White House’s demand that the AP refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” a name introduced by executive order.

When the AP refused to comply, maintaining its editorial independence, the White House responded by barring its reporters from key press access areas, including the Oval Office and Air Force One.

The administration justified the ban by citing the AP’s influence on journalistic standards and its refusal to amend its Stylebook accordingly.

The AP asserts that this exclusion is a direct attempt to coerce compliance with government-preferred terminology, undermining the press’s role in providing independent coverage. The lawsuit contends that these actions violate the First and Fifth Amendments, restricting press freedom based on viewpoint discrimination and enacting retaliation without due process. Having exhausted all efforts to resolve the matter through discussion, the AP now seeks judicial intervention to restore its access and uphold the constitutional protections of a free press.

This most recent scuffle follows a history of the administration’s allegations of partisanship and general distrust of AP. As members of The Associated Press who work with AP materials several times per week, we acknowledge that claims of a left-leaning bias in AP content are exaggerated but not imagined.

While most AP content is factual and relatively neutral, we notice that narratives reflecting left-leaning sentiments appear more frequently than those from the right. We do not view that tendency as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy but rather a reflection of the creative personalities drawn to our industry.

We also recognize the irony of this situation. The AP has long been instrumental in updating and standardizing language, particularly in promoting the adoption of updated place names – think Peking to Beijing, Bombay to Mumbai. Now, it finds itself resisting an attempt to dictate a naming convention.

That said, we stand with our colleagues at The Associated Press in their assertion that the White House should not – and constitutionally cannot – dictate the naming conventions of a private enterprise. The government may set terminology within federal agencies, but enforcing those decisions on independent news organizations crosses a dangerous line. Frankly, we would hope the administration has more pressing matters to attend to than rebranding large bodies of water.

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America feels eerily reminiscent of the 2003 episode when “French Fries” were rebranded as “Freedom Fries” in response to France’s opposition to the Iraq invasion. That effort, appropriately, never extended far beyond the House of Representatives cafeteria, where it was quickly recognized as unserious. If this administration aspires to be seen as credible, it should avoid similar missteps.

Beyond constitutional concerns, the White House’s move appears petty. Excluding a major news organization over a capricious name change does no favors for the administration or the American people. Ultimately, we believe the government should demonstrate its professed knack for negotiated compromise. AP could easily acknowledge an alternative naming convention as a footnote in the 2026 Stylebook, and the administration could, and should, just as easily reinstate the AP’s press privileges.