Court blocks ‘restrictive’ Pentagon press access policy
A US federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s restrictive Pentagon press access policy, which threatened to brand journalists as security risks if they sought information not authorized for public release.
The New York Times filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, DC, claiming that the Department of Defense’s policy changes in 2025 violated the Constitution’s protections of free speech and due process, giving the department the latitude to freeze reporters and news organizations for news it does not like.
The government disputed that characterization and said the policy was reasonable and necessary for national security.
In his decision Friday, 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 latest “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.”
The Pentagon and the New York Times did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision. Most likely the government will object.
The changes, approved by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in October, state that journalists could be deemed a security risk and have their press badges revoked if they seek the disclosure of classified and, in some cases, unclassified information from unauthorized military personnel.
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.
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 “security or safety 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, objective criteria. The government also said encouraging military personnel to commit crimes by disclosing unauthorized information is not legally protected speech.
The policy change was criticized by journalism advocates, who called it a new attack on the free press by Trump and his administration.
