A federal judge took decisive action on Friday to overturn several elements of a restrictive press policy introduced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last year. The judge determined that these measures infringed upon the constitutional rights of journalists covering the U.S. military from its vast headquarters.
This ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman represents a significant setback for Hegseth’s attempts to tighten control over military press coverage. It arrives at a time when Defense Department reporting has intensified, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict in Iran and a recent U.S. operation in Venezuela.
The judge’s decision nullifies key provisions that allowed the Pentagon to suspend or revoke press credentials based on their coverage. However, it maintains other parts of the policy that were previously established and not contested in this legal challenge.
In a sharply worded opinion, Friedman, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, emphasized the First Amendment’s role in empowering the press to publish freely and allowing the public to access information without government interference.
Friedman further noted, “The framers of the First Amendment believed that national security depends on a free press and an informed populace, and that such security is threatened by governmental censorship of political discourse. This principle has safeguarded our nation for nearly 250 years and must be upheld today.”
The New York Times filed a lawsuit against the policy late last year, arguing that it infringes upon their First Amendment and due process rights.
The parts of the policy Friedman struck down required beat reporters to sign a pledge not to obtain or use unauthorized material. Scores of news organizations, including the Times and CNN, declined to agree, resulting in reporters being denied press badges that give them access to the Pentagon.
Friedman ordered officials to reinstate the press badges of seven national security reporters at the Times who lost access to the Pentagon last year.
“The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected,” Friedman wrote. “But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing – so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election.”
CNN has reached out to the Defense Department and New York Times for comment.
“The district court’s decision is a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war,” First Amendment attorney Theodore Boutrous, who is representing The Times in the suit, told CNN.
Another ruling against Hegseth on First Amendment
Friedman became the second judge in recent weeks to conclude that Hegseth was playing fast and loose with First Amendment protections.
Last month, another judge who sits in the same courthouse said the secretary had run afoul of the free speech rights of a Democratic senator when he attempted to retaliate against the lawmaker over his urging of US service members to refuse illegal orders.
Friedman on Friday pointed to various statements by Hegseth and his aides that he said shows the department has been “openly hostile” to reporting from mainstream news organizations whose stories “it views as unfavorable, but receptive to outlets that have expressed ‘support for the Trump administration in the past.’”
“The undisputed evidence reflects the policy’s true purpose and practical effect: to weed out disfavored journalists – those who were not, in the department’s view, ‘on board and willing to serve,’ and replace them with news entities that are,” he wrote. “That is viewpoint discrimination, full stop.”
Friedman also agreed with the Times that the policy ran afoul of its due process rights because it was vague and therefore could be unintentionally violated by reporters seeking to comply with it.
“A primary way in which journalists obtain information is by asking questions,” he wrote. “Under the policy’s terms, then, essential journalistic practices that the plaintiffs and others engage in every day – such as asking questions of department employees – could trigger a determination by the department that a journalist poses a security or safety risk.”
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “It’s unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon’s ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash.”
“Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting ‘authorized’ narratives,” Stern said in a statement.
This story has been updated with additional details.
