WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that the Defense Department is violating its earlier order to restore access to the Pentagon for reporters, a blow to the administration’s efforts to disrupt the work of journalists.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman sided with The New York Times for the second time in a month. He previously said the Pentagon’s new certification policy violated journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. On Thursday, he said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s team sought to avoid his March 20 decision by putting in place new rules to expel all journalists from the building unless directed by escorts.
“The Department cannot reinstate an unlawful policy under the pretense of taking ‘new’ action and expect the courts to look the other way,” Friedman wrote.
Friedman ordered Pentagon officials to restore the press credentials of seven Times reporters, insisting that his decision would apply to “all regulated parties.” The Pentagon building serves as the headquarters for US military operations.
Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell said it disagreed with the decision and intended to appeal. Parnell said in a social media post that the department has “always” complied with the judge’s order, restoring the reporters’ credentials and issuing a “materially revised policy that addresses all concerns” identified by the judge.
“The Department is committed to providing press access to the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation,” he wrote.
Times attorney Theodore Boutros said Thursday’s ruling “powerfully vindicates both the court’s authority and the First Amendment’s protection of a free press.”
The dispute has been going on since October
In October, journalists from mainstream news outlets walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules. The Times sued the Pentagon and Hegseth in December to challenge the policy.
President Donald Trump has been fighting the press on many levels since returning for his second term, suing The Times and The Wall Street Journal, and cutting funding for public radio and television because he doesn’t like their coverage. At the same time, he frequently talks to the media and answers reporters who call him on his cell phone.
In a series of briefings on the Iran war, Hegseth repeatedly ignored or insulted legacy media reporters for covering events, focusing on questions from friendly conservative media.
Lawyers for the Times accused the Pentagon of violating the judge’s March 20 order, “both in letter and spirit” with its revised policy. The newspaper said the Pentagon was also trying to enforce unprecedented rules when reporters can keep sources anonymous.
Friedman said the access the Pentagon provides to permit holders is “not as meaningful as the broad access” they once had.
Government lawyers said the Pentagon’s revised policy fully complied with the judge’s directive. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the administration will appeal Friedman’s March 20 decision.
The Pentagon Press Association, which includes Associated Press reporters, said the Pentagon’s interim policy preserved provisions Friedman deemed unconstitutional and added new restrictions on evidence holders.
“In fact,” Justice Department lawyers wrote, “Plaintiffs ask this Court to extend the order to prohibit the Department from protecting the Pentagon’s press credentials policy through conditions such as those that may address similar topics or concerns. The order does not say so, and this Court should not read it to say so.”
The current Pentagon press corps agreed to the policy
The current Pentagon press corps is mostly made up of conservative outlets that agree on policy. Journalists from outlets that have refused to agree to the new rules, including the AP, have continued to report on the military from outside the Pentagon.
Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said recent U.S. military actions in Venezuela and Iran underscore the need for public access to information about government activities.
“The drafters of the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security required a free press and an informed public, and that government suppression of political speech threatened such security. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for nearly 250 years. It should no longer be abandoned,” the judge wrote last month.
Friedman said the challenging policy was clearly designed to remove “obscure journalists” and replace them with an administration “on board and willing to serve.”
“That,” he wrote, “is discrimination, full stop.”
