US judge blocks Trump administrations’ Pentagon press access policy
The New York Times’ lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleged that policy changes the Defense Department made last year gave it latitude to freeze reporters and news organizations for coverage the department did not like, in violation of the Constitution’s protections of free speech and due process. The government disputed that characterization and said the policy was reasonable and necessary for national security.
Also read: Pentagon to adopt Palantir AI as core US military system, statement says
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said he recognized the importance of protecting troops and war plans, but in light of President Donald Trump’s recent “attack” on Venezuela and war with Iran, “it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what their government is doing.” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on social media that the government disagreed with the decision and would file an immediate appeal.
New York Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said the decision enforced constitutionally protected rights to a free press and “reaffirmed the right of The Times and other independent media to continue asking questions on behalf of the public.”
“Americans deserve visibility into how their government is run and the actions the military takes on their behalf and with their tax dollars,” Stadtlander said in a statement Friday.
MOST NEWS CENTERS HAVE NOT SIGNED THE NEW POLICY
The amendments, approved under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in October 2025, state that journalists could be deemed a security risk and have their press badges revoked if they make unauthorized requests to military personnel to disclose classified and, in some cases, non-classified information. According to the Times’ lawsuit, only one of 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association agreed to sign off on the new policy. Reporters who did not sign surrendered their press cards.
Also read: Trump says he’s considering ‘ending’ Iran war but rules out ceasefire
Following the journalists’ exodus, the Pentagon created a new press group comprised of pro-Trump outlets and media personalities; The Times said this was evidence that the policy was aimed at suppressing bad reporting.
The policy states that releasing sensitive information is “generally protected by the First Amendment,” but says that requesting that information may be considered by authorities in determining whether a reporter poses a “safety or security risk.”
The policy unlawfully restricts basic newsgathering techniques and gives the Pentagon “unlimited” discretion to revoke clearances, allowing it to impose the kind of “viewpoint-based” press restrictions prohibited by the Constitution, the Times said in its lawsuit.
Justice Department lawyers acknowledged the policy was partly subjective but said press accreditation decisions were still governed by impartial and objective criteria. The government also said encouraging military personnel to commit crimes by disclosing unauthorized information is not legally protected speech.
In Friday’s decision, Friedman said the policy violated the First and Fifth Amendments because it was vague, overbroad and “makes any news gathering and reporting not approved by the Department a possible basis for revocation of a journalist’s permit.”
He also rejected the government’s claim that the policy was aimed at preventing criminal solicitations of defense secrets by journalists, saying it was impossible for reporters to know whether the information they were seeking was authorized to be published.
The policy change was criticized by journalism advocates, who called it another attack on the free press by Trump and his administration.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, praised Friday’s ruling, saying it was “shocking” for the government to claim that “journalists asking questions of the government is a crime.”
The Associated Press has a pending lawsuit against Trump administration officials over the agency’s removal from the White House press corps after the news agency decided to continue using the established name for the Gulf of Mexico and agreed to Trump’s executive order urging U.S. agencies to call it the Gulf of America.
While the AP said the decision amounted to unlawful viewpoint discrimination, the government disagreed, saying it had broad discretion over press access decisions for areas not open to the public.
