Published March 20, 2026
A federal judge has agreed to block President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing a policy restricting reporters’ access to the Pentagon.
Friday’s ruling supports the New York Times’ argument that key parts of the new rules are illegal.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Pentagon’s policy unlawfully restricted the press privileges of reporters who left the building without agreeing to the new rules.
In December, the paper sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, accusing the credentialing policy of violating journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
The current Pentagon press corps is made up mostly of conservative media outlets that agree with the policy. Reporters from news organizations that refused to agree to the new rules, including the Associated Press, continue to report on the military.
Friedman, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “does not provide fair notice of what routine lawful journalistic conduct may result in the denial, suspension, or revocation of a Pentagon reporter’s license.”
He ruled that the Pentagon’s policies ultimately violate First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process.
“The framers of the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security required a free press and an informed public, and that such security was endangered by government suppression of political speech. This principle has kept the nation safe for nearly 250 years, and we must not abandon it now,” the justices wrote.
The Times praises the verdict
New York Times spokesman Charlie Stadtländer said the paper believes the ruling “enforces this country’s constitutionally protected right to a free press.”
“Americans have a right to know how their government is run and what our military is doing in the name of the American people 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 asking questions on behalf of the public.”
Theodore Boutras, an attorney who represented the Times at a hearing earlier this month, said in a statement that the court’s decision is “a powerful repudiation of the Department of Defense’s efforts to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during wartime.”
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
The policy claims to impose “common sense” rules that protect the military from disclosure of national security information.
“The purpose of that process is to prevent broad access to U.S. military headquarters by those who pose a security risk,” government lawyers wrote.
Meanwhile, the Times’ legal team argued that the policy was aimed at silencing unfavorable reporting against President Trump’s administration.
“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting unlimited power to restrict speech, because the mere existence of such arbitrary power can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.
Eliminate “unfavorable” journalists
The judge said he recognized that “national security must be protected, the security of our military must be protected, and the war plan must be protected.”
“But especially in light of the recent invasion of Venezuela and the ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public has access to information from a variety of perspectives about what the government is doing,” Friedman wrote.
Friedman said “incontrovertible evidence” shows the policy is aimed at eliminating “disadvantaged journalists” and replacing them with people who “participate and are willing to serve” in government, and is a clear example of unlawful viewpoint discrimination.
“In summary, this policy, on its face, makes any interview or reporting not authorized by the Department a potential basis for denial, suspension, or revocation of journalistic privileges,” he wrote. “For journalists, there is no way to know how to do your job without losing your credentials.”
The Pentagon had asked the judge to put the decision on hold for a week for an appeal. Friedman refused.
A judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the journalistic licenses of seven Times reporters. But he said his decision to invalidate the challenged policy terms applied to “all regulated political parties.”
Friedman gave the Pentagon one week to submit a written report on compliance with the order.
The Times argued that the Pentagon applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper said Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who is an ally of President Trump and agrees with Pentagon policy, appears to be violating the Pentagon’s ban on soliciting unauthorized information by promoting “Snitches.”
The government did not object to Mr. Loomer’s tip, but concluded that the Washington Post’s tip violated policy because it allegedly “targeted” military and department employees.
The judge said he saw no meaningful difference between the two tip lines.
“But the problem is that there is nothing in the policy that explicitly prevents the department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently,” Friedman added.
