SUMMARY: Summarize this content to 100 words: Key officials with Trump administration dispatched to Greenland – president Trump focused on America’s northern allies today dispatching key administration officials to Greenland while also talking with Canada’s new prime minister about tariffs erica Brown reports from the White House vice President JD Vance and Second Lady Usha Vance arrived to sub-zero temperatures in Greenland Friday as they toured a US Space Force base it’s cold as here the vice president’s visit comes as President Trump pushes for a US takeover of the semi-autonomous Danish territory greenland and Danish leaders have called the visit a provocation our message to Denmark is very simple you have not done a good job by the people of Greenland that has to change and because it hasn’t changed this is why President Trump’s policy in Greenland is what it is president Trump wants greater access to Greenland’s abundant mineral oil and natural gas wealth and in the Oval Office Friday he said the island is essential to US national security we have to have Greenland it’s not a question of do you think we can do without it we can’t president Trump has also pushed for Canada to join the US as the 51st state friday he spoke with Canada’s new prime minister Mark Carney for the first time trump says he believes the US and Canada can strike a fair trade deal though Carney said Canada will implement retaliatory tariffs we had a very good talk uh the prime minister and myself and I think things are going to work out very well between Canada and the United States the president also announced he wants Congress to pass a law allowing Americans to write off the interest on new car purchases if the vehicles are built in America erica Brown CBS News

President Trump dispatched key administration officials to Greenland, and they are also discussing tariffs with Canada’s new prime minister.

Source

by Ashley Murray, Arkansas Advocate
March 27, 2025

WASHINGTON — The Associated Press and the Trump administration delivered arguments in federal court Thursday in a case that could alter decades of established press access in the White House.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden for the District of Columbia heard details from the AP’s White House reporter and photographer about their exclusion for the last 44 days from joining their competitors and peers in witnessing President Donald Trump’s events in the Oval Office.

The two journalists, and other AP reporters, have also been refused entry to most larger White House events, including in the East Room, and the tarmac for Air Force One departures.

The AP, which has been a member of the White House press pool since the 19th century, maintains that the sudden ban violates its First Amendment and due process rights and has hurt its competitiveness as a wire service that reaches thousands of newsrooms.

The AP continues to have access to the daily White House press briefings and the driveway near the West Wing entrance, along with over 1,000 other journalists who have “hard passes” to the general White House complex — an argument Trump officials have made to prove they are not altogether banning the wire service.

The news organization is seeking a preliminary injunction mandating the administration immediately cease barring the AP from events that are open to a limited number of credentialed press and rescind its policy excluding the outlet from the smaller daily White House press pool. Such an action would likely last until a final judgment is reached.

McFadden, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by Trump in 2017 and confirmed by the Senate in a 84-10 vote, asked the parties to halt any other evidence submissions so that he can rule in a timely manner.

At a hearing Feb. 24, McFadden rejected the AP’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have required the White House to immediately restore its access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other places.

‘The president wasn’t happy’

White House chief correspondent Zeke Miller testified that Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, summoned him on Feb. 11 to say “the president wasn’t happy” that the AP continued to use the name Gulf of Mexico after he had ordered the U.S. coastal waters should be called the Gulf of America.

“He had decided we wouldn’t be permitted into the Oval Office if we didn’t change our policy and that we should ‘act quickly’ to (change it),” Miller recalled of Leavitt’s message.

The AP has not changed its style guidance because the Gulf of Mexico shares borders with Mexico and Cuba, and the AP’s coverage reaches global clients and readers that have recognized the body of water as the Gulf of Mexico for centuries.

When asked by the AP’s legal counsel if the new policy has chilled the AP’s coverage, Miller said “undoubtedly our reporting has suffered.”

Miller, a White House reporter for just over 12 years, said before Feb. 11 he would regularly see his own news alerts pop up on his cell phone “while the event was still going.”

The wire service, which transmits news and photos in near real-time to subscriber members around the world, is now spending time independently verifying reports from other outlets or relying on delayed video feeds that do not show who else is with the president or his environment, Miller said.

“We don’t know what those other outlets are including or not including,” he said, especially when those outlets may fear the “viewpoint discrimination” the AP contends it’s faced from the Trump administration.

Miller testified neither he nor his White House colleagues have been permitted with other reporters in the Oval Office since Feb. 11, and that they have only been intermittently admitted to press conferences with foreign leaders or ceremonies in larger spaces, including the East Room, which can hold over 100 journalists.

The news outlet has had to fly its foreign correspondents to the United States to be part of the foreign press permitted in the Oval Office during visits from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Kier Starmer, according to the news organization.

While the White House has admitted AP photographers to some events in the East Room, they’ve been shut out of others.

Evan Vucci, the AP’s chief Washington photographer, testified “there’s no rhyme or reason.” The “only thing that’s consistent” is that the AP has been targeted, Vucci said.

White House defense

The government called no witnesses but instead filed a last-minute supplemental declaration Wednesday from Taylor Budowich, White House deputy chief of staff and Cabinet secretary, and lead defendant in the case.

The AP moved to strike the declaration Wednesday, arguing the judge had ordered live witnesses, but McFadden denied the motion Thursday.

Budowich contends the wire services, TV and radio correspondents and print reporters that comprised the smaller press pool “under the old system continue to be eligible for pool selection in the new system.”

Leavitt announced Feb. 25 that going forward, the White House would choose which journalists can access the Oval Office and Air Force One — breaking decades of agreement between numerous administrations and the White House Correspondents Association.

The independent group, made of journalists, has self-governed since the Eisenhower administration, operating on the principle that the press corps, not the president, should determine the makeup of the press pool that accompanies the president almost everywhere.

Under the new pool system, White House officials “have been empowered to better perform their jobs by creating a pool that best serves the public by pairing the topics of each event with the reporters and audience who are most curious about them,” Budowich stated in his declaration.

But AP attorney Charles Tobin said that argument “just doesn’t hold up.”

Showing the list of journalists chosen to be in the pool on Feb. 28 — the day of the explosive Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy — Tobin pointed out that the White House had chosen The Los Angeles Times to be in the room.

But for the past several months, the LA Times’ coverage of Ukraine only consisted of republications of AP wire service feeds, he said.

By banning the AP, the White House is “shrinking” its reach to the public, argued Tobin, of Ballard Spahr law firm.

Tobin also said he doesn’t buy Budowich’s argument that the AP remains eligible to be chosen for the smaller press pool, pointing to the deputy chief of staff’s public social media postings and statements from other White House officials, all the way up to the president.

“If he’s saying it does not constitute a ban, then we don’t speak the same language because that’s exactly what he’s saying,” Tobin said.

In his closing statement, Brian Hudak, assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, said “we’re not saying they can’t publish (what they want), we’re just saying ‘You can’t go here.’”

Hudak also added that the president is well within his power to choose “a certain population of journalists” he wants to allow in the Oval Office and other spaces.

“I don’t think that offends the Constitution on the First Amendment side,” Hudak said.

How it started

President Donald Trump signed an executive order hours after his inauguration renaming the U.S. coastal waters along Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas as the Gulf of America. He also reinstated the name of Alaska’s Denali mountain to Mount McKinley.

The AP, which issues editorial guidelines followed by journalists around the world, advised it would continue using the Gulf of Mexico with the notation that Trump had renamed the portion of water along the U.S. coast.

The outlet, however, issued guidance for journalists to use the name Mount McKinley because the president can rename locations fully within the U.S.

In an attempt to avoid litigation, the outlet’s executive editor, Julie Pace, contacted Trump administration officials to discuss the action against the AP. But the AP ultimately filed a lawsuit on Feb. 21 as the White House and Trump “doubled down” on the new policy, according to court documents.

White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles told Pace in Feb. 18 correspondence that the AP Stylebook, a detailed online and print guide for reporters and editors, “has been misused, and at times weaponized, to push a divisive and partisan agenda,” according to court documents.

That same day, Trump said the White House would “keep (the AP) out until such time that they agree that it’s the Gulf of America.”

As of a March 3 court filing, the AP said it was still banned from the pool and wider events that other reporters — even at least one that didn’t sign up ahead of time — were permitted to attend in person.

The outlet wrote in the brief that it “has repeatedly explained to administration officials that government attempts to control the words that journalists use — and excluding those journalists and retaliating against them when they do not comply — are unconstitutional and contrary to the public interest.”

A March 17 declaration by Miller lists dozens of events covered by the press pool at the White House and during the president’s travel that the AP has been denied access to.

Barring journalists for what they write

The AP maintains the Trump administration violated the outlet’s Fifth Amendment protections when the White House, without written warning and avenue to challenge, barred its journalists for “arbitrary and viewpoint-discriminatory reasons” from locations and events open to other press.

The outlet has a liberty interest in exercising its First Amendment rights, the AP argued, and therefore must receive due process if the government seeks to take away that constitutional right. And, the AP points to precedent set by the D.C.Circuit that the liberty interest in exercising freedom of speech extends to newsgathering.

Quoting the 1977 D.C. Circuit ruling in Sherill v. Knight — a key decision repeatedly mentioned — the AP argued: “‘Not only newsmen and the publications for which they write, but also the public at large have an interest protected by’ the First and Fifth Amendments ‘in assuring that restrictions on newsgathering be no more arduous than necessary, and that individual newsmen not be arbitrarily excluded from sources of information.’”

In that case, the Circuit Court ruled that press credentials to the White House could not be denied without procedural protections and that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

But the White House argues that the AP has no liberty interest in “having special media access to the president.”

“The Associated Press’s journalists continue to enjoy the same general media access to the White House press facilities as all other hard pass holders and continue to occasionally have special access to the President. The Associated Press’s special access is simply no longer permanent,” according to the White House opposition brief.

Quoting from the 1996 case JB Pictures, Inc. v. Department of Defense, the White House argued “‘the First Amendment does not provide journalists any greater right of access to government property or information than it provides to members of the public, despite the fact that access to government information ‘might lead to more thorough or better reporting.’”

White House press officials also maintain that the president has discretion over which journalists join him in the “most intimate of his work and personal spaces.”

Press pool history

For decades the White House Correspondents Association has included in the daily pool three wire service reporters, from the AP, Reuters and Bloomberg; four photographers, from AP, Reuters, Agence France-Presse and The New York Times; and rotations of three TV network journalists, a radio correspondent and a print reporter, according to an amicus brief filed by the organization.

The wire services regularly included in the pool have the largest reach of all news outlets covering the White House, and is why the association structures the pool as it is, according to court filings. 

Last updated 5:51 p.m., Mar. 27, 2025

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post The AP and Trump administration renew court fight over White House press access appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

by Kevin Hardy, Stateline, Arkansas Advocate
March 27, 2025

For the Day Eagle Hope Project, federal money has helped volunteers deliver fresh produce and meat to families in need across the remote Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in northern Montana — while putting cash into the hands of farmers, ranchers and meat processors.

The nonprofit generally has less than $300,000 to spend per year. So the $200,000 from a U.S. Department of Agriculture local food buying program significantly raised both the quantity and quality of the food it could distribute.

“They were a major, major contributor to our food,” said Tescha Hawley, who directs the organization, which aims to improve physical, mental and spiritual health.

The USDA recently nixed more than $1 billion from two programs that helped food banks and school meal programs buy local foods, including $660 million for schoolchildren. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently described the programs as “nonessential.”

But the move has left hundreds of school systems and food banks reeling. They already face rising food prices and are struggling to help community members with growing food insecurity.

Created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Local Food Purchase Assistance and the Local Food for Schools programs aimed to build more resilient supply chains of domestic food by connecting schools and food pantries with small ranches, farms and dairies. The program was initially funded by 2021’s American Rescue Plan Act but later expanded by the Biden administration.

The federal programs stimulated the purchase of locally grown fruits, vegetables, dairy and meats — benefiting both the smaller farmers who received fair market pay for their products and the organizations granted funds to buy high quality foods.

The noncompetitive grants sent hundreds of millions of dollars to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and 84 tribal governments, boosting business for more than 8,000 farmers and providing local food to almost as many food banks. The Trump administration is killing the programs, despite Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign against processed food, which he says is “poisoning” Americans.

Without ongoing funding, Hawley said, she would have to rely on cheaper, less nutritious food.

“It’s simple, right? I can get a truck … in here with all highly processed food, no problem,” she said.

Schools are facing a similar challenge: While officials running breakfast and lunch programs would prefer to buy more local products, those are often expensive. And with underfunding, high food costs and labor struggles, school lunch programs are already stretched thin.

In Milan, Tennessee, the federal funds allowed the local school system to buy minimally processed beef from a local stockyard, and broccoli, purple hull peas, tomatoes and melons from local growers.

Vickie Dunaway, who supervises the school system’s food services, told the Tennessee Lookout the federal cuts mean “going backwards” on purchasing healthier foods.

“That will obviously have to be cut out, because our budget will not withstand being able to purchase local,” she said. “Purchasing local, minimally processed food is way more expensive than buying from a distributor.”

A ‘devastating’ cut to food banks

Late last year, USDA said the programs had already spent more than $1 billion on local foods, and announced an expansion of the two programs with an additional $1.13 billion. USDA has killed that $1.13 billion expansion; it is still reimbursing the previously committed funds.

The Trump administration, which has sought to dramatically slash the size of the federal government, told recipients earlier this month that the programs “no longer effectuate the goals of the agency.”

In a statement to Stateline, the USDA said the current administration is “prioritizing stable, proven solutions that deliver lasting impact.”

“The COVID era is over — USDA’s approach to nutrition programs will reflect that reality moving forward,” the statement said.

The nonpartisan National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, which represents the ag department leaders of all 50 states, last month lobbied the federal government to continue the local foods program with permanent funding and ease procurement regulations for school meal programs. Arkansas Secretary of Agriculture Wes Ward, president of the association, said in a statement that the local food programs aid both producers and consumers.

“Investing in local and regional food systems not only strengthens the connections between farmers and their local communities, it bolsters supply chain resiliency as well,” his statement read.

In New Mexico, the program allowed food banks to buy some 900,000 pounds of locally grown food from more than 200 farmers since 2023. Before the program was terminated, the state was expecting close to $3 million in additional funding, Source New Mexico reported.

Jill Dixon, executive director of The Food Depot in northern New Mexico, called the cuts “devastating.”

In Texas, the San Antonio Food Bank counted on USDA’s local food program to help round out the food boxes it provides to families in need. The food bank, which serves more than 100,000 people across 29 Texas counties, largely relies on donated foods from hotels, restaurants and grocery stores.

“The challenge is I might get peanut butter donated, but I don’t have the jelly, or I might have pasta donated, but I don’t have the marinara,” said Eric Cooper, president and CEO of the food bank. “This program allowed us to purchase those items that we didn’t get that then helped round out the food box, or really complement the food that was being donated to give families the ability to make meals.”

The program initially provided the food bank nearly $3 million in grant funding — about 20% of what the organization spends each year on bulk food purchases. It expected a similar amount this year, before USDA’s announcement.

Cooper said cuts come even as the need for assistance rises. Food prices have squeezed families, and mass layoffs of federal workers portend more demand for food assistance in the coming months, he said.

“And we’ll be caught in the middle. And you know, that’s an incredibly uncomfortable place to be. The only thing we’ll be able to do is just ration what little we have — to spread it as thinly as possible over the number of households we provide food to.”

A boost for school lunches

For years, school meal programs have struggled with tight margins. Not only do they have to meet strict nutritional guidelines, but schools also face lagging reimbursement from the federal government and spend millions covering the cost of students’ unpaid meal debt.

At the 1,600-student Monticello School District in Arkansas, that debt is approaching $60,000.

So $50,000 from USDA’s local food program was a significant boost to the bottom line.

“That was such a help,” said Amanda West, the district’s child nutrition director.

The southeast Arkansas district used grant money to buy locally grown ground beef. The beef went into dishes including taco salad, meatloaf and spaghetti.

West said staff and students immediately noticed a difference in taste from conventionally purchased meats. And though the local product cost more, West said it also yielded more because it was not full of additives that cause the meat to shrink when cooked.

West, who is the president of the Arkansas School Nutrition Association, noted that her state is home to the nation’s highest rates of food insecurity.

West had hoped to see the local foods program help turn that tide by bringing more stability to school meal programs and growing the state economy by boosting local farmers, ranchers and distributors.

“We’re all upset about it. I hate that we’re not receiving it because grocery prices are 30, 40% higher than what they were a few years ago, and it really hurts our budget,” she said. “It helped a lot of districts, including mine, and it would be amazing if we could get it back.”

On top of the local foods program cuts, congressional Republicans are considering billions in potential cuts to free and reduced-price school meal programs — cuts the School Nutrition Association says could potentially affect millions of American students.

The federal government partially subsidizes breakfast, lunch and after-school snack programs at rates calculated by the income level of students’ families.

The School Nutrition Association, which represents 50,000 school meal providers across the country, said the school meals are the healthiest many American children receive. But that group says federal reimbursements are far from adequate, leaving members worried about the future of their meal programs.

In a recent association survey of more than 1,390 school meal directors, more than 90% reported serious or moderate concern over the financial sustainability of their school meal programs three years from now.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Federal cuts squeeze already-struggling food banks, school lunch programs appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com