In a recent legal battle, the New York Times achieved a significant victory against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s press restrictions, which were deemed another breach of the First Amendment. However, the newspaper claims the government, instead of complying, hastily devised a new policy. This has prompted a judge’s stern rebuke of what he describes as a “dangerous” affront to press freedom, especially during wartime.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman began his 20-page opinion on Thursday by emphasizing the importance of the First Amendment, noting the U.S. Supreme Court’s assertion that it “is no word game.”

Judge Friedman, appointed by Bill Clinton, recounted his March 20 decision, labeling the Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials (PFACs) as a press-restrictive measure that both the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit have identified as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

The New York Times initiated the lawsuit in December, arguing that as the Defense Department transitioned to the “Department of War,” it was excluding critical press voices and granting access to supporters of the administration instead.

The newspaper highlighted that individuals like Mike Lindell, known for promoting 2020 election conspiracies, and other staunch supporters of then-President Donald Trump, were granted Pentagon access. In contrast, the Times and similar outlets, which refused to sign loyalty pledges limiting their reporting, were denied access.

In response to these restrictions, many journalists left the Pentagon in October, surrendering their credentials. Several conservative media organizations also chose not to endorse a policy that threatened expulsion or other severe penalties for journalists who reported unapproved information, potentially labeling them as “security or safety risks.”

Friedman sided with the Times on March 20 and blocked the “unconstitutional” policy, but the government’s answer was to create a “new” policy that included an “abrupt closure of the Correspondents’ Corridor” and a “ban on credentialed journalists traveling unescorted through the Pentagon[.]”

The Trump administration, stating its belief that Friedman’s order contained “mischaracterizations” about its PFACs, called the new language “targeted clarifications.”

That backfired, as the judge instead saw the move as “a blatant attempt to circumvent a lawful order[.]”

“At bottom, the defendants ask this Court to hold that so long as the Department does not reinstate the exact words of the Challenged Provisions, and so long as it restores The Times’ reporters’ physical credentials, it has done enough,” Friedman said Thursday. “If the Department immediately uses new words to do the same thing? Too bad. The plaintiffs need to start over while the Court stands idly by. If the Department immediately takes steps to undermine the purpose of the reporters’ credentials, namely, entry to the Pentagon? Again, too bad. The Court need not embrace such a narrow interpretation of its authority and permit such a blatant attempt to circumvent a lawful order of the Court to succeed.”

Like the judge who derailed Hegseth’s quest to punish Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., for telling service members they can “refuse illegal orders,” Friedman said the “Constitution demands better” of the secretary.

“The Court cannot conclude this Opinion without noting once again what this case is really about: the attempt by the Secretary of Defense to dictate the information received by the American people, to control the message so that the public hears and sees only what the Secretary and the Trump Administration want them to hear and see,” the judge concluded.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell reacted to the ruling by claiming the administration “has at all times complied” and “intends to appeal.”

“[I]t reinstated the PFACs of every journalist identified in the Order and issued a materially revised policy that addressed every concern the Court identified in its March 20 Opinion,” Parnell posted. “The Department remains committed to press access at the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation.”