A federal judge has blocked key portions of the Pentagon’s press access policy, siding with the New York Times and ruling that the Trump administration’s controversial policy was unconstitutional.
The policy, which was introduced in October, prohibited journalists from soliciting information that the defense department didn’t directly provide, and revoked the credentials of any outlet that didn’t sign on. News outlets including the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg News and the Atlantic joined TV networks in refusing to sign. Of 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association, only one agreed to sign onto the new policy.
“Those who drafted the first amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech,” US district court judge Paul Friedman wrote in his opinion. “That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”
A lawsuit by the New York Times in the Washington DC federal court alleged that policy allowed the administration leeway to cut off access to any outlets or reporters whose coverage it didn’t like, violating constitutional free speech protections as outlined in the first amendment.
Donald Trump’s administration argued said the policy is reasonable and necessary to protect the military.
Friedman, in ruling against the Pentagon policy, said while national security “must be protected”, it is also imperative that the public stay informed.
“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”, Friedman wrote.
On Friday, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the administration is “pursuing an immediate appeal.”
After defense secretary Pete Hegseth approved the new policy, the Pentagon assembled a new press corps consisting of pro-Trump outlets and media personalities .
In its lawsuit, the Times said the policy unlawfully restricts essential newsgathering techniques and gives the Pentagon “unfettered” discretion to revoke passes, permitting it to impose the type of “viewpoint-based” press restrictions forbidden by the constitution.
Justice department lawyers acknowledged the policy was partly subjective but said press credentialing decisions were still governed by neutral, objective criteria. The government also said soliciting military personnel to commit a crime by disclosing unauthorized information was not legally protected speech. The policy change was criticized by journalism advocates, who called it another attack on the free press by Trump and his administration.
“It’s shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal,” Seth Stern, the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s chief of advocacy, said in a statement on Friday. “It’s unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon’s ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash.”
“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,” New York Times spokesperson Charlie Statdlander said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”
The Associated Press has a pending lawsuit against Trump administration officials over its removal from the White House press corps after the news agency decided to continue using the Gulf of Mexico’s established name, while acknowledging Trump’s executive order calling on US institutions to refer to it as the Gulf of America.
