Published on 20 March 2026
A federal judge in the United States has agreed to block President Donald Trump’s administration from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon.
The ruling party on Friday said in its argument with The New York Times that key parts of the new rules are unlawful.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricted the press credentials of journalists 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, claiming the credentialing policy violates journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
The current Pentagon press corps consists mostly of conservative outlets that agree with the policy. Reporters from outlets, including the Associated Press, that had refused to consent to the new rules have continued reporting on the military.
Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide impartial information about denials, suspensions or revocations of Pentagon press credentials that result from routine, legitimate journalism practices”.
He ruled that the Pentagon’s policy ultimately violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process.
The judge wrote, “The drafters of the First Amendment believed that a free press and an informed people were essential to the security of the nation and that such security was endangered by government suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the security of the nation for nearly 250 years. It should not now be abandoned.”
The Times praised the decision
New York Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said the newspaper believes the decision “imposes constitutionally protected rights to a free press in this country”.
“Americans deserve to have a say in how their government is run, and what actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,” Stadtlander said in a statement. “Today’s decision reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue asking questions on behalf of the public.”
Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer who represented the Times at a hearing earlier this month, said in a statement that the court’s decision is “a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to hinder press freedom and the reporting of vital information to the American people in a time of war.”
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.
It has argued that the policy enforces “common sense” rules that protect the military from disclosure of national security information.
“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to U.S. military headquarters,” government lawyers wrote.
Meanwhile, the Times’ legal team claimed that the policy was designed to silence press coverage unfavorable to President Trump’s administration.
He wrote, “The First Amendment clearly prohibits giving the government unbridled power to restrict speech because the very existence of such an arbitrary power can lead to self-censorship.”
Excluding ‘disgraced’ journalists
The judge said he believed that “national security must be protected, the safety of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected”.
Friedman wrote, “But especially in light of the country’s recent incursions 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 that “indisputable evidence” shows that the policy is designed to drive out “disgraced journalists” and replace them with people who are “on board and willing to serve” in the government, a clear example of illegal viewpoint discrimination.
“In short, the policy itself makes any newsgathering and reporting that does not have the department’s blessing a potential basis for denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s (certificate),” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how to do their jobs without losing their credibility.”
The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend his decision for a week pending an appeal. Friedman refused.
Judge orders Pentagon to reinstate press credentials of seven Times journalists. But he said his decision to remove the challenging policy terms applied to “all regulated parties”.
Friedman gave the Pentagon one week to file a written report on compliance with the order.
The Times argued that the Pentagon had applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper wrote that Trump aide Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who agreed with Pentagon policy, appeared to violate the Pentagon’s ban on soliciting unauthorized information by promoting her “tip line.”
The government did not object to Loomer’s tip line, but concluded that the Washington Post tip line violates its policy because it allegedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.
The judge said he did not see any meaningful difference between the two tip lines.
“But the problem is that nothing in the policy explicitly prevents the department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently,” Friedman said.
