Judge rules Pentagon restrictions on press are unconstitutional

WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Friday ruled that the Pentagon’s restrictions on news outlets violate the First Amendment and issued an order tossing parts of the department’s policy, handing a victory to The New York Times, which filed suit in December over the restrictions.

Judge Paul Friedman, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also ordered the Pentagon to restore the press passes of seven journalists for the Times. They had surrendered those passes in October instead of signing the policy, which empowered the Pentagon to declare journalists “security risks” and revoke their press passes if they engage in any conduct that the Pentagon believes threatens national security.

In his ruling, Friedman wrote that the Pentagon’s policy rewarded reporters who were “willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by Department leadership.”

Siding with an argument advanced by the Times, Friedman added that the Pentagon had given itself too much power to enforce its new rules.

The ruling was a defeat for the Trump administration, which has been engaged in a multifaceted pressure campaign against the news media. Both CBS News and ABC News agreed to pay $16 million each to settle lawsuits that President Donald Trump brought against the networks. ABC late-night star Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily pulled off the air last year after Trump’s top communications regulator assailed his program and suggested that he might take regulatory action against the broadcaster.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former host on Fox News, has continued Trump’s adversarial stance toward the news media. He proposed denying access to Pentagon to a reporter from NBC News, then removed several news organizations from their on-site workstations. Months later, he curtailed the unescorted roaming privileges of journalists within the complex.

A spokesperson for the Times said the ruling “reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf,” adding that “Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Pentagon policy took effect in October and drew condemnations from numerous mainstream outlets for penalizing news-gathering methods long protected by the First Amendment. Dozens of journalists who had press passes to the Pentagon turned them in rather than sign the new policy. The Defense Department then welcomed a new set of credentialed media members, most of them pro-Trump commentators or influencers.

At a March 6 hearing in the case, Friedman signaled his frustration with the rules. A Justice Department lawyer representing the Defense Department, for instance, drew an animated response from the judge when he argued that journalists don’t have First Amendment protections when they solicit the “disclosure of unauthorized information.”

“Why not? Why not?” Friedman replied, adding that department officials can simply refuse to answer such inquiries from journalists, but there is “no proscription” on journalists asking questions.

Friedman had also appeared skeptical of a provision in the policy declaring off-limits certain journalistic tip requests. Though the Pentagon drew a bright line delineating prohibited tip requests from problematic ones, Friedman said, “I don’t understand that argument. I hope that the government can explain it.”

It is unclear whether the government will appeal the ruling. In the March 6 hearing, the Justice Department asked that the court send the rules back to the Defense Department for refining — so that the Pentagon could “rehabilitate the policy” — rather than vacate the disputed provisions.

Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that “the court affirmed that our security and liberty rely on the press’ freedom to publish and the public’s ability to access news about government affairs free from state control.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.