The judge found that Pentagon policy illegally restricted the press credentials of journalists who refused to accept the new rules
A US federal judge today prevented Donald Trump’s government from implementing a policy that limits journalists’ access to the Pentagon, considering important parts of the regulation unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman of Washington, D.C., ruled in favor of The New York Times and found that Pentagon policy illegally restricted the press credentials of journalists who refused to accept the new rules.
Friedman ruled that the policy violates the rights to free speech and due process guaranteed by the United States Constitution, noting that it “does not provide adequate advance notice of what routine and lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials.
“Those who wrote the First Amendment (to the Constitution) believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people, and that such security is threatened by government suppression of political speech. This principle has preserved the nation’s security for nearly 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” wrote the judge, appointed to the position by Democratic President Bill Clinton.
New York Times attorney Theodore Boutrous said the court ruling represents “a strong rejection of the Pentagon’s attempt to impede press freedom and the release of vital information to the American people in a time of war.”
The New York newspaper in December sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging that the accreditation policy violates journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
Journalists from several important media outlets refused to accept the new rules, including the Associated Press (AP) and France Presse (AFP).
The Pentagon’s current press corps is now made up mostly of conservative bodies who have agreed with the policy.
During hearings in the case, the government argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from disclosing national security information.
“The purpose of this lawsuit is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to U.S. military headquarters,” government lawyers wrote.
Lawyers for the Times argued that the policy aims to silence news coverage unfavorable to President Donald Trump’s administration.
“The First Amendment categorically prohibits the government from granting itself the unfettered power to restrict free speech, because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.
The judge said he recognized that “national security must be protected, the security of troops must be protected and war plans must be protected.”
“But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and the ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever for the public to have access to information from diverse perspectives about what their government is doing — so that the public can support government policies if they wish; protest if they wish; and decide, based on complete, transparent and open information, who they will vote for in the next election,” Friedman wrote.
The judge stated that the “indisputable evidence” shows that the policy aims to eliminate “unwanted journalists” and replace them with those who are “aligned and willing to serve” the government, a clear example of illegal viewpoint discrimination.
“In short, the Policy, prima facie, makes any news gathering and reporting not approved by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s credentials,” he wrote.
The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend the decision for a week so the appeal could be considered, but Friedman refused.
The judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven New York Times journalists, noting that its decision to void the terms of the disputed policy applies to “all regulated parties,” and gave the Pentagon a week to submit a written report on compliance with the order.
