The Pentagon‘s new restrictions on press access violate the First and Fifth Amendments, a federal judge ruled Friday, delivering a victory to media outlets that left the complex after they refused to sign the policy.
The decision is a major victory for the New York Times, which challenged the policy, but also media outlets whose reporters had to leave the Pentagon, with some correspondents having reported from there for decades.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman wrote in his opinion (read it here): “The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected. But especially in light of 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 — so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election.”
A spokesperson for the Pentagon did not immediately return a request for comment.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his press team imposed the new restrictions last fall. In October, reporters were required to sign on to the new restrictions or face losing their credentials to access the Pentagon on a regular basis. Journalists from outlets ranging from the major broadcast and cable networks to PBS and Newsmax refused to sign, leading to an exodus from the press area at the complex. Replacing them were a number of outlets on the right, including those supporting of President Donald Trump including Laura Loomer, Matt Gaetz and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.
The judge wrote that “the undisputed evidence reflects the policy’s true purpose and practical effect: to weed out disfavored journalists — those who were not, in the Department’s view, ‘on board and willing to serve’ — and replace them with news entities that are. That is viewpoint discrimination, full stop.”
Friedman agreed with the Times‘ argument that the policy was impermissibly vague, with a restriction that gave leeway to Pentagon officials to revoke their credentials if “a person is reasonably determined to pose security or safety risk to [Department] personnel or property.” The policy also raised the prospect of journalists having their credentials pulled if they solicited information — classified or unclassified — that had not been approved for official release.
The judge wrote that “a journalist would have no way of knowing what information has been authorized for release and what has not. Under the Policy, if the journalist happens to ask a question that results in the disclosure of unauthorized information by a Department employee, that question could lead to the journalist being deemed a ‘security or safety risk.'”
English (US) ·