Fresh from a courtroom loss over The Associated Press’ access to the presidency, the White House on Tuesday put forward a new media policy that sharply curtails access to Donald Trump by news agencies that serve media outlets around the world. It was the latest attempt by the new administration to control coverage of its activities.

The move would block the AP and other wire services that serve billions of readers through thousands of news outlets. It comes after a judge ruled the White House had violated the organization’s free speech by banning it because it disagreed with the outlet’s decision not to rename the Gulf of Mexico.

While outlining a new “pool coverage” policy for small spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One, the White House also said it will ultimately give press secretary Karoline Leavitt the final say over who gets to question her boss, according to people who have seen the plan.

The White House did not return messages for comment on Tuesday evening.

A federal judge last week ruled the White House improperly punished the AP for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico by blocking its reporters and photographers from covering the events. U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden ordered the administration to treat the AP as it does other news organizations.

A day after defying McFadden’s ruling and continuing AP’s ban when Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele met with reporters in the Oval Office, the White House leaked a new policy to selected journalists.

For many years, the White House Correspondents Association has run the pool for the limited space events, and each time it has included reporters from the wire services AP, Reuters and Bloomberg. One print reporter was also allowed, selected on a rotating basis from more than 30 news outlets.

The White House now says it will lump the three wire services with print reporters for two slots — meaning roughly three dozen reporters will rotate for two regular slots. Wire services typically report and write stories that are used in multiple locations around the country and the planet.

Even with the rotation, the White House said Trump’s press secretary “shall retain day-to-day discretion to determine composition of the pool.” The new policy says reporters will also be allowed in “irrespective of the substantive viewpoint expressed by an outlet.”

In a statement, the AP’s Lauren Easton said the outlet was deeply disappointed that rather than restore the AP’s access, the White House instead chose restrictions over all of the wire services.

“The wire services represent thousands of news organizations across the U.S. and the world over,” said Easton, an AP spokeswoman. “Our coverage is used by local newspapers and television stations in all 50 states to inform their communities.

“The administration’s actions continue to disregard the fundamental American freedom to speak without government control or retaliation,” Easton said Tuesday night.

The independent White House Correspondents’ Association said the administration’s insistence on retaining control over who covers the president shows that it is unwilling to guarantee that it would not continue “viewpoint discrimination.”

“The government should not be able to control the independent media that covers it,” said Eugene Daniels, the association’s president.

Under Leavitt, the White House has given greater access to news outlets friendly to Trump. That was visible Tuesday, when the first reporter Leavitt addressed during a briefing asked two questions while also praising Trump policy.

At Monday’s Oval Office meeting, Trump bristled at questions from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins about a man deported to an El Salvador prison, at one point accusing CNN of “hating our country.” He made it a point to contrast her questions with a non-pointed one from another reporter.

Despite the occasional fireworks, Trump has made himself accessible to the media more than his predecessor, former President Joe Biden. Cramped-quarters events, particularly in the Oval Office, are some of his favorite places to talk — rendering the new access policy all the more impactful.

The new policy advanced on Tuesday did not address access for photographers. At an earlier court hearing about the AP’s case, the outlet’s chief White House photographer, Evan Vucci, and correspondent Zeke Miller testified about how the ban has hurt the business of a news agency built to quickly get news and images to its customers.

The dispute stems from AP’s decision not to follow the president’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico, although AP style does cite Trump’s wish that it be called the Gulf of America. McFadden agreed with AP’s argument that the government cannot punish the news organization for what it says — for exercising its right to free speech.

The White House has argued that press access to the president is a privilege, not a right, that it should control — much like it decides to whom Trump gives one-on-one interviews. In court papers filed last weekend, his lawyers signaled that even with McFadden’s decision, the AP’s days of unchallenged access to open presidential events were over.

“No other news organization in the United States receives the level of guaranteed access previously bestowed upon the AP,” the administration argued. “The AP may have grown accustomed to its favored status, but the Constitution does not require that such status endure in perpetuity.”

The administration has appealed McFadden’s ruling, and is scheduled to be in an appeals court on Thursday to argue that ruling should be put on hold until the merits of the case are fully decided, perhaps by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The administration has not curtailed AP access to Leavitt’s briefings over the past two months. It has blocked access to events in the East Room to White House-credentialed AP reporters — until Tuesday, when one was allowed into an event that involved the Navy football team.

___

David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will hear arguments Wednesday in a legal dispute that pits a suburban Ohio school district’s policy requiring use of students’ preferred pronouns against the free speech rights of classmates who believe there are only two genders.

The lawsuit brought by Parents Defending Education, a national Christian organization, against the Olentangy Local School District in 2023 has captured broad national attention from groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Manhattan Institute. Ohio’s solicitor general has asked to participate in oral arguments on behalf of 22 U.S. states that have interests in the case.

A lower court rejected the group’s arguments that the policies violated students’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit affirmed that decision in July.

The full court will reconsider that decision in a rare en banc hearing Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know:

The lawsuit takes issue with overlapping district policies that prohibit the use of gender-related language that other students might deem insulting, dehumanizing, unwanted or offensive and call for the use of peers’ “preferred pronouns.”

The district’s electronic devices policy — which applies both on and off school time — prohibits transmitting “disruptive” material or material that could be seen as harassing or disparaging other students based on their gender identity or sexual orientation, among other categories.

A separate antidiscrimination policy prohibits students from engaging in “discriminatory language” during times when they’re under the school’s authority. That is defined as “verbal or written comments, jokes, and slurs that are derogatory towards an individual or group based on one or more of the following characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and transgender identity), disability, age, religion, ancestry, or genetic information.”

The district’s code of conduct echoes many of the same themes a third time.

Parents Defending Education, founded in 2021 amid the culture wars over schools’ teachings on race, diversity and sexuality, argues that the policies compel students and parents who belong to their group to “affirm an idea that gender is fluid” in contradiction of their religious beliefs.

“These students have views that the District disfavors,” the group wrote in a court filing. “Specifically, they believe that people are either male or female, that biological sex is immutable, and that sex does not change based on someone’s internal feelings. Accordingly, they ‘d(o) not want to be forced to ‘affirm’ that a biologically female classmate is actually a male — or vice versa — or that a classmate is ’nonbinary’ and neither male nor female.”

The group argues that the policies unconstitutionally compel “viewpoint-based” speech by forcing students who believe in only two genders to use pronouns that suggest otherwise. They say that violates the First Amendment’s guarantees to free speech and similar protections contained in the 14th Amendment, particularly since students are subject to punishment for violating the policies.

Parents Defending Education further challenges the electronic devices policy for applying outside school hours and off school property. The ACLU has sided with the parents’ group on this point, arguing the district’s policies are overbroad.

Olentangy Local School District outside Columbus, one of the state’s largest districts, maintains the policies protect students against abuse and harassment and asserts that Parents Defending Education represents “Christian, cisgender” students “seeking dispensation under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to harass other students based on their gender identity.”

“They are not illegal immigrants subject to deportation. They are not gay soldiers under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. They’re not African Americans in the Jim Crow south. They’ve not been systematically oppressed,” the district’s lawyers told the lower court. “They’re members of the majority who want to — under the guise of the First Amendment — openly voice their opposition to an historically maligned minority group, transgendered people.”

Olentangy argues that Parents Defending Education has failed to provide evidence of injury — as the lawsuit was filed before disciplinary action had been brought against any student. The district also says that its policies leave open other options for students who don’t wish to use someone’s preferred pronouns. That includes calling the person by their first name, using a gender-neutral pronoun or simply not referring to them at all.

The availability of such options, an argument against the policies unconstitutionally compelling students to say certain things, played a role in the three-judge panel’s 2-1 ruling in favor of the district last summer.

NEW YORK — The White House blocked an Associated Press reporter from an event in the Oval Office on Tuesday after demanding the news agency alter its style on the Gulf of Mexico, which President Donald Trump has ordered renamed the Gulf of America.

The reporter, whom the AP would not identify, tried to enter the White House event as usual Tuesday afternoon and was turned away. Later, a second AP reporter was barred from a late-evening event in the White House Diplomatic Room.

The highly unusual ban, which Trump administration officials had threatened earlier Tuesday unless the AP changed the style on the Gulf, could have constitutional free-speech implications.

Julie Pace, AP’s senior vice president and executive editor, called the administration’s move unacceptable.

“It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism,” Pace said in a statement. “Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment.”

The Trump administration made no immediate announcements about the moves, and there was no indication any other journalists were affected. Trump has long had an adversarial relationship with the media. On Friday, the administration ejected a second group of news organizations from Pentagon office space.

Before his Jan. 20 inauguration, Trump announced plans to change the Gulf of Mexico’s name to the “Gulf of America” — and signed an executive order to do so as soon as he was in office. Mexico’s president responded sarcastically and others noted that the name change would probably not affect global usage.

Besides the United States, the body of water — named the Gulf of Mexico for more than 400 years — also borders Mexico.

The AP said last month, three days after Trump’s inauguration, that it would continue to refer to the Gulf of Mexico while noting Trump’s decision to rename it as well. As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP says it must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences.

AP style is not only used by the agency. The AP Stylebook is relied on by thousands of journalists and other writers globally.

Barring the AP reporter was an affront to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bars the government from impeding the freedom of the press, said Tim Richardson, program director of journalism and misinformation for PEN America.

The White House Correspondents Association called the White House move unacceptable and called on the administration to change course.

“The White House cannot dictate how news organizations report the news, nor should it penalize working journalists because it is unhappy with their editors’ decision,” said Eugene Daniels, WHCA’s president.

This week, Google Maps began using “Gulf of America,” saying it had a “longstanding practice” of following the U.S. government’s lead on such matters. The other leading online map provider, Apple Maps, was still using “Gulf of Mexico” earlier Tuesday but by early evening had changed to “Gulf of America” on some browsers, though at least one search produced results for both.

Trump also decreed that the mountain in Alaska known as Mount McKinley and then by its Indigenous name, Denali, be shifted back to commemorating the 25th president. President Barack Obama had ordered it renamed Denali in 2015. AP said last month it will use the official name change to Mount McKinley because the area lies solely in the United States and Trump has the authority to change federal geographical names within the country.

___

David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social

As TikTok faces existential threats in Western markets, its community flees to RedNote — the international version of Xiaohongshu. It’s a lifestyle haven: glossy posts, curated recommendations and a familiar influencer culture.

But dig a little deeper, and the reality becomes far more insidious. RedNote isn’t just another app; it’s a tightly controlled platform that exports censorship, reshapes youth culture, and quietly undermines the democratic ideals its community takes for granted.

TikTok And RedNote: Freedom In Disguise

RedNote’s appeal lies in its resemblance to TikTok — a space for creativity, self-expression and viral content.

However, where TikTok is a freewheeling marketplace of ideas, RedNote operates within a fundamentally different framework. As a Chinese-owned platform, its privacy policy and community guidelines aren’t just corporate boilerplate; they’re a statement of compliance with China’s strict regulatory and censorship laws. Every post, like, and comment exists in an ecosystem designed to prioritize “core socialist values” over freedom of speech.

For Westerners, especially younger ones, this reality is initially invisible. Over time, RedNote’s content moderation creates an environment where dissent is suppressed and self-censorship flourishes. For instance, posts addressing politically sensitive issues, such as criticism of Chinese cybersecurity laws or advocacy for human rights in Xinjiang, have reportedly been flagged or removed. In a report by China Digital Times, RedNote’s (Xiaohongshu) content moderation includes strict guidelines for handling “sudden incidents,” a term used to describe politically or socially sensitive topics. A leaked internal document revealed that the platform actively censors discussions that could be deemed controversial or destabilizing, aligning its practices with China’s broader regulatory framework.

This systematic approach conditions young people to self-censor and avoid raising sensitive topics altogether, creating an environment where control is exercised subtly but pervasively. Over time, such practices redraw the boundaries of what young people consider safe or acceptable to discuss. According to Reuter’s, the platform’s algorithms prioritize content aligned with state-approved narratives while suppressing more controversial viewpoints, effectively redrawing the boundaries of acceptable thought.

TikTok And RedNote: The Illusion Of Consent

The danger lies in normalizing this trade-off. Young people, often eager for connection and expression, may not fully grasp what they consent to. RedNote’s privacy policy explicitly states that the platform collects a wide range of personal information, including location data, browsing habits, and interactions with content. Additionally, it tracks device information, such as IP addresses and device identifiers, to “enhance user experience.” While this may seem routine, the policy also grants the platform the right to share this data with “third-party service providers” or “relevant government authorities,” raising significant privacy concerns.

Trading access for autonomy—whether through extensive data collection or content moderation—creates a dangerous precedent. Subtle prompts during onboarding or daily use might seem harmless, like agreeing to vague terms or allowing personalized recommendations, but these interactions steadily erode user autonomy. Moreover, RedNote’s terms include provisions to “maintain a safe and harmonious community environment,” a phrase that aligns closely with China’s strict regulatory framework.

Over time, the illusion of freedom—where people feel in control but operate within tightly defined boundaries—risks becoming the new standard for social media. Consent without transparency isn’t freedom; it’s a one-sided agreement that grants platforms control, cloaked in the illusion of choice. On RedNote, people unwittingly trade autonomy for curated convenience, setting a dangerous precedent for the future of digital engagement.

RedNote: Hijacking Youth Culture

The most troubling aspect of RedNote’s rise is its influence on young people. This generation grew up with social media as a megaphone for individuality and activism. But what happens when that megaphone is muted? Platforms like RedNote aren’t alone in their influence on youth; concerns about social media and adolescent mental health have been well-documented.

RedNote’s algorithms do more than recommend content — they shape perceptions. By prioritizing sanitized, state-approved narratives, they normalize conformity and discourage the kind of questioning that fuels progress. According to the New York Times, in live group chats under the hashtag “#TikTokRefugee,” participants discussed topics like urban safety and censorship, often sharing tips on how to “play by the rules” to avoid bans — tacitly normalizing self-censorship as a survival tactic.

At first glance, the forum seemed open and lively, with people sharing tips on navigating RedNote’s Mandarin-based interface or debating cultural differences. But the platform’s design subtly influenced the conversation. Posts addressing politically sensitive issues, such as the Chinese government’s role in internet regulation, were flagged or quietly removed.

Meanwhile, comments from Chinese people frequently reinforced the narrative that RedNote was “a safe and harmonious space” for discussions, reflecting the state-approved language used across the platform. This juxtaposition of guarded curiosity from Westerners and state-sanctioned optimism from Chinese people reveals the platform’s engineered boundaries for acceptable dialogue. Even the appearance of a freewheeling exchange is carefully curated, subtly conditioning participants to adapt to its constraints.

Young people, drawn by influencers and trends, may not realize they’re engaging with a platform that subtly conditions them to accept limits on their freedom. Influencers on RedNote who gain popularity tend to avoid politically sensitive topics to maintain their standing on the platform. As these behaviors are modeled for younger audiences, the boundaries of permissible discourse are reinforced, creating a culture where conformity is rewarded, and challenging the status quo is discouraged.

The result? A generation less inclined to challenge authority or fight for democratic ideals.

RedNote: A Broader Threat to Democracy

RedNote isn’t just a risk to individuals; it’s a risk to societies. The platform’s rapid growth among Westerners represents a subtle but significant shift in the global digital landscape. By exporting a content control and surveillance model, RedNote challenges the open exchange of ideas on which democracy depends.

This isn’t fearmongering; it reflects the platform’s design. RedNote collects vast amounts of user data, operates under laws requiring cooperation with Chinese authorities, and employs content moderation practices that align with state interests.

Platforms like RedNote are a perfect storm for younger people, whose brains are still developing, particularly in areas like impulse control and critical thinking. AI systems are being engineered to exploit psychological weaknesses with surgical precision, shaping behavior, emotions, and perceptions in ways that the community themselves may not fully understand.

The result? A generation molded by algorithms designed to reward conformity, stifle dissent and embed surveillance into their daily lives—all under the guise of connection and inspiration. It’s like pitting the developing human frontal lobe against an AI optimized for manipulation—a deeply unbalanced equation with far-reaching implications.

As RedNote gains traction, it becomes a gateway for authoritarian influence, subtly but profoundly reshaping cultural and political landscapes far beyond its borders.

Joining RedNote has also brought Westerners closer to Chinese citizens than ever before. While this cross-cultural dialogue is unique, it occurs within a controlled environment, shaping perceptions in subtle but significant ways. By presenting a curated view of acceptable content, RedNote risks creating a global audience accustomed to censorship as the norm.

Protecting The Future

The rise of RedNote demands action—not panic, but thoughtful, decisive measures to safeguard people and democratic principles. Governments must lead the charge by enforcing transparency and establishing global digital privacy and data sovereignty standards. Collaboration between nations could help regulate platforms like RedNote, ensuring accountability for data-sharing practices and compliance with international human rights standards.

Educators and parents also play a critical role. Schools must integrate digital literacy into their curriculums, teaching young people to recognize platform biases, question what they consume, and understand the risks of unchecked online behavior. Parents should reinforce this at home, encouraging open conversations about digital safety and the importance of critical thinking in online spaces.

But the most immediate power lies with individuals. People must begin asking hard questions about the platforms they trust:

• Who owns them?
• What are they doing with our data?
• Most importantly, who are the interests they truly serve?

Governments must enforce transparency, and educators and parents must prepare young people to navigate these platforms critically. Experts have highlighted strategies for creating safer digital environments to protect kids from these risks.

By demanding platforms that reflect their values and foster genuine creativity, communities can help reshape the digital landscape into one that prioritizes freedom over control.

RedNote: What’s Next

RedNote might look like the next big thing, but its impact reaches far beyond hashtags and trending posts. It’s not just an app—it’s a test of how we, as a global society, respond to the digital challenges of our time.

Governments must act swiftly to enforce transparency, establish global data privacy standards, and hold platforms accountable for their practices. Educators and parents must equip young people with the tools to critically evaluate digital platforms, empowering them to navigate an increasingly complex online world with informed skepticism. But the power to shape the future doesn’t rest with institutions alone. It’s in the hands of people who demand platforms that reflect their values, foster genuine creativity, and uphold democratic principles.

The future of the internet is being written today. Recognizing the risks and acting decisively could transform RedNote into a wake-up call for a better, freer digital tomorrow. RedNote is a wake-up call to scrutinize the platforms we trust—because the choices we make today will shape the freedoms we live with tomorrow.

BERLIN — Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk caused uproar after backing Germany’s far-right party in a major newspaper ahead of key parliamentary elections in the Western European country, leading to the resignation of the paper’s opinion editor in protest.

Germany is to vote in an early election on Feb. 23 after Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party governing coalition collapsed last month in a dispute over how to revitalize the country’s stagnant economy.

Musk’s guest opinion piece for Welt am Sonntag —a sister publication of POLITICO owned by the Axel Springer Group — published in German over the weekend, was the second time this month he supported the Alternative for Germany, or AfD.

“The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the last spark of hope for this country,” Musk wrote in his translated commentary.

He went on to say the far-right party “can lead the country into a future where economic prosperity, cultural integrity and technological innovation are not just wishes, but reality.”

The Tesla Motors CEO also wrote that his investment in Germany gave him the right to comment on the country’s condition.

The AfD is polling strongly, but its candidate for the top job, Alice Weidel, has no realistic chance of becoming chancellor because other parties refuse to work with the far-right party.

An ally of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, the technology billionaire challenged in his opinion piece the party’s public image.

“The portrayal of the AfD as right-wing extremist is clearly false, considering that Alice Weidel, the party’s leader, has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka! Does that sound like Hitler to you? Please!”

Musk’s commentary has led to a debate in German media over the boundaries of free speech, with the paper’s own opinion editor announcing her resignation, pointedly on Musk’s social media platform, X.

“I always enjoyed leading the opinion section of WELT and WAMS. Today an article by Elon Musk appeared in Welt am Sonntag. I handed in my resignation yesterday after it went to print,” Eva Marie Kogel wrote.

A critical article by the future editor-in-chief of the Welt group, Jan Philipp Burgard, accompanied Musk’s opinion piece.

“Musk’s diagnosis is correct, but his therapeutic approach, that only the AfD can save Germany, is fatally wrong,” Burgard wrote.

Responding to a request for comment from the German Press Agency, dpa, the current editor-in-chief of the Welt group, Ulf Poschardt, and Burgard — who is due to take over on Jan. 1 — said in a joint statement that the discussion over Musk’s piece was “very insightful. Democracy and journalism thrive on freedom of expression.”

“This will continue to determine the compass of the “world” in the future. We will develop “Die Welt” even more decisively as a forum for such debates,” they wrote to dpa.