Democrats are voicing strong disapproval of a U.S. Attorney’s recent statement regarding the Associated Press’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration. The controversy stems from the White House’s decision to bar AP reporters from official events due to the news organization’s refusal to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” in its reporting.

The Associated Press filed the lawsuit last week, alleging that the White House’s actions constitute an unconstitutional effort to control speech. The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump nominee, in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, Ed Martin, the interim acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, released a statement that sparked outrage among Democrats. In his statement, Martin said, “As President Trump’s lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership as our President and we are vigilant in standing against entities like the AP that refuse to put America first.”

The statement was posted on the official social media account of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. This move was immediately criticized by U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), an outspoken critic of Trump. Murphy wrote on the social media platform X, “This is insane. If you wonder why some of us think the rule of law is about to fall, it’s this. The U.S. Attorney for DC is not ‘President Trump’s lawyer’ and its job is not to ‘protect his leadership’ nor prosecute people who ‘refuse to put America first.’”

Many users on social media pointed out that the U.S. Attorney represents the United States, not the President. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) mocked Martin over the comment, saying that U.S. Attorneys “are not the president’s lawyers.”

U.S. Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) called on Martin to resign. “U.S. Attorneys are not the President’s lawyers. They are the United States’ lawyers. You didn’t pledge an oath to a President, you pledged it to the constitution. This statement alone is reason enough for you to resign,” he wrote on X.

A handful of other political pundits weighed in, including former Trump White House communication director Anthony Scaramucci. MeidasTouch also called the statement “unAmerican” in a post on X. Scaramucci wrote, “Maybe he forgot to take Constitutional Law in Law School. Atrocious and wrong.”

The lawsuit was filed Friday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., 10 days after the White House began restricting access to the news agency. The AP says its case is about an unconstitutional effort by the White House to control speech — in this case, not changing its style from the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America,” as President Donald Trump did last month with an executive order.

The AP’s lawsuit names White House chief of staff Susan Wiles, deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich, and press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The news agency argues, “The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government.”

The AP further states, “This targeted attack on the AP’s editorial independence and ability to gather and report the news strikes at the very core of the First Amendment. This court should remedy it immediately.” The Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, speech, and religion and bars the government from obstructing any of them.

This controversy highlights a broader issue of the independence of U.S. Attorneys and their role in upholding the law. Critics argue that the U.S. Attorney’s statement undermines the impartiality of the Department of Justice and raises questions about political influence in law enforcement.

Proponents of the U.S. Attorney’s statement may argue that it is a matter of defending the President’s executive orders and ensuring compliance with federal policies. However, the broader implications of such statements could erode public trust in the Department of Justice and the judicial system as a whole.

This incident serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between executive authority and the independence of the judiciary. As the lawsuit progresses, it will be crucial for the court to uphold the principles of the First Amendment and ensure that the press remains free from government retaliation.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.