Free Speech: Defending AP Restrictions by Citing Unrelated Previous Legislation

Civil Liberties Source: Constituent Letter Response DEFLECTION

Why This Matters for NY-23

A free press serves constituents by holding power accountable. When a representative defends restricting traditional news outlets while championing access for aligned podcasters, the question of viewpoint discrimination matters. Whether you think AP deserves White House access or not, the response pattern is notable: constituent raised concern about current administration → response attacks previous administration and cites unrelated legislation.

Statement

Source: Constituent Letter Response, January 14, 2026

Constituent wrote expressing concerns about the Trump Administration and freedom of speech.

Langworthy’s response defends White House restrictions on the Associated Press:

“Actions taken by the Trump Administration to limit the Associated Press (AP) from attending certain Oval Office events, traveling on Air Force One, and joining small press pools are not unconstitutional.”

“Unlike the Biden Administration who pressured social media companies to remove content they disagreed with… President Trump has made no effort to silence the voices of everyday Americans.”

Congressional Record

H.R. 140 (Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act):

  • Passed House: March 9, 2023 (219-206)
  • Referred to Senate: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
  • Senate floor vote: Never occurred
  • Status: ACCURATE
  • Source: Congress.gov, House Rules Committee

Bill Status in 119th Congress:

  • Letter states H.R. 140 “has not yet been reintroduced in the current Congress”
  • Status: ACCURATE as of January 2026
  • Source: Congress.gov search

What H.R. 140 Actually Addressed

The Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act prohibited federal employees from using their authority to:

  • Urge social media companies to remove speech or accounts
  • Pressure companies to add warning labels
  • Demand internal policy changes regarding content moderation

Key point: H.R. 140 addressed government pressure on social media platforms - not physical access to the White House press pool.

The Pivot

Constituent’s concern: Trump Administration and freedom of speech

Langworthy’s response:

  • Defended AP restrictions as “not unconstitutional”
  • Attacked Biden administration’s social media interactions
  • Cited H.R. 140 from previous Congress (addressed different issue)
  • Claimed Trump has “expanded access” to “podcasts and independent journalists”

What the Response Defends

The Trump administration has:

  • Restricted AP from Oval Office events
  • Barred AP from Air Force One travel
  • Excluded AP from press pools

Langworthy’s framing:

“President Trump has actually expanded access to the White House for politically focused podcasts and independent journalists - including from Barstool Sports, Flagrant, and The Free Press.”

Questions This Raises

  1. Does restricting traditional press while expanding access to aligned media outlets raise viewpoint discrimination concerns?

  2. H.R. 140 addressed social media pressure, not physical press access - how is it relevant to AP restrictions?

  3. The constituent raised concerns about the current administration. Does defending those actions address the concern, or dismiss it?

  4. Is “not unconstitutional” the standard for evaluating press access policies, or is there a broader press freedom question?

Sources

  • Congress.gov: H.R. 140 legislative record (118th Congress)
  • House Rules Committee: H.R. 140 materials
  • Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: Referral records

Note: This entry documents publicly available information from official congressional records. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Research contribution: Constituent submission via LangworthyWatch

In Plain Language

The constituent asked about the Trump Administration and freedom of speech.

Langworthy’s response:

  1. AP restrictions are “not unconstitutional”
  2. Biden pressured social media companies
  3. Here’s H.R. 140 from 2023 (addressed social media, not press pool access)
  4. Trump expanded access to Barstool Sports and “independent journalists”

The pivot: A constituent asks about restricting Associated Press → response attacks Biden’s social media interactions and cites legislation about a different issue.

Whether AP restrictions are constitutional is a legal question. Whether restricting traditional press while expanding access to aligned outlets raises press freedom concerns is the question the constituent asked. The letter defends the administration rather than engaging with the concern.

Last updated: January 20, 2026