A federal judge has blocked the administration of President Donald Trump from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon, siding with The New York Times in a ruling issued Friday.
Pentagon Policy Blocks Access for Reporters
US District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.
The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, alleging the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
The current Pentagon press corps largely consists of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including those from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.
Friedman, nominated by President Bill Clinton, stated the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials.
He ruled the Pentagon policy violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process. “Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote.
Times Lauds Ruling
New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said the newspaper believes the ruling “enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country”.
“Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,” Stadtlander said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”
Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer representing The Times, called the court ruling “a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war”.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The department has argued the policy imposes “common sense” rules protecting military information.
“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government lawyers wrote.
The Times’ legal team argued the policy is designed to silence unfavourable press coverage of President Trump’s administration. “The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.
Weeding Out ‘Disfavoured’ Journalists
The judge acknowledged the need to protect national security, troop safety, and war plans. However, he wrote that, especially given the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, “it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing.”
Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, constituting illegal viewpoint discrimination.
“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s [credentials],” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”
The Pentagon’s request to suspend the ruling for appeal was denied. Friedman ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists, stating the decision applies to “all regulated parties”.
The Pentagon has one week to file a report on its compliance with the order.
The Times also argued the Pentagon inconsistently applied its own rules, citing Trump ally Laura Loomer, who appeared to violate the Pentagon’s prohibition on soliciting unauthorised information by promoting a “tip line”. The government did not object to Loomer’s tip line but concluded a Washington Post tip line violated policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel.
The judge said he saw no meaningful difference between the two tip lines, adding, “But the problem is that nothing in the Policy explicitly prevents the Department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently.”
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
