By Joke Kujenya
RECENT WHITE House restrictions on Associated Press (AP) reporters have sparked backlash from major press freedom organisations, raising concerns over media access and the erosion of journalistic independence.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), alongside a coalition of media watchdogs, have condemned the decision to bar AP from Oval Office briefings, Air Force One travel, and other White House pool events.
A joint letter signed by multiple journalism groups stressed AP’s critical role in news reporting, highlighting that thousands of media outlets in the U.S. and globally depend on its coverage.
“AP provides essential reporting that keeps millions informed on national and international matters. Newspapers, radio stations, and television networks rely heavily on its reports,” the letter stated.
Press freedom advocates are also urging the Trump administration to reverse the ban and honour its commitment to free expression.
They referenced an executive order from former President Donald Trump, which outlined protections for press freedom, calling on the government to uphold these principles.
The White House action follows AP’s decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico by its traditional name despite a new U.S. government directive renaming it the “Gulf of America.”
AP clarified that while it acknowledged the administration’s stance, its style guidelines would maintain the globally recognised name.
In response, the White House blocked an AP journalist from covering official events, justifying the decision by accusing the news agency of spreading “lies.”
CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg criticised the move, calling it a “dangerous precedent” that undermines the administration’s stated commitment to a free press.
“Retaliating against AP, a globally respected source of fact-based journalism, weakens the public’s ability to access unbiased information,” Ginsberg said. “This follows a troubling pattern of penalising the media for independent reporting.”
Concerns over press freedom in the U.S. have also intensified amid other developments, including retaliatory lawsuits against journalists, potential regulatory overreach by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the freezing of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding for independent media abroad.
According to CPJ, Trump’s administration has initiated or been involved in at least 29 media-related lawsuits since 2015, a strategy critics say is intended to burden news organisations with costly legal battles and encourage self-censorship.
Additionally, CPJ warns that the FCC’s investigations into broadcasters, including NPR and PBS, could be used as a tool for press intimidation.
International press advocates have also raised alarms over the U.S. government’s suspension of USAID funding, a move that could severely impact independent media in authoritarian-leaning states that rely on external support.
CPJ further noted that many organisations facing government restrictions depend on such aid to continue operating.
Further compounding fears are personal attacks on journalists from senior administration officials.
CPJ also cited derogatory remarks directed at Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, warning that such rhetoric increases the risk of online and physical attacks against reporters.
Meanwhile, at RightsCon 2025 in Taipei, CPJ representatives, including Deputy Advocacy Director Amelia Evans and Senior Africa Researcher Jonathan Rozen, addressed growing digital threats to journalism.
Speaking on a panel about global surveillance, CPJ Latin America researcher Dánae Vílchez emphasised the need for stronger protections, including visa assistance and security measures for exiled journalists facing digital harassment.
Vílchez notes that the escalating press restrictions in the U.S. have drawn international scrutiny, with media advocates calling for urgent action to safeguard journalistic integrity.
Thus, CPJ insists that a free and independent press remains vital to democracy and that government policies should reflect this principle.
