A federal judge ruled the Pentagon’s press policy unconstitutional, stating it violated free speech rights by threatening journalists for seeking unauthorised information.
NEW YORK: A federal judge has blocked a restrictive Pentagon press access policy, declaring it unconstitutional. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by The New York Times.
Judge Paul Friedman stated the policy violated the First and Fifth Amendments. He argued it was overly broad and vague, making any reporting not approved by the Department a potential reason to revoke a journalist’s credentials.
The policy, approved in October 2025, allowed the Defence Department to brand journalists as security risks. This could occur if they solicited unauthorised information from military personnel, even if unclassified.
It further permitted the Pentagon to revoke the press badges of those deemed a risk. Of 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association, only one agreed to sign an acknowledgment of the new rules.
The New York Times’ lawsuit alleged the changes gave officials free rein to freeze out reporters over disliked coverage. The government argued the policy was a reasonable measure necessary for national security.
Judge Friedman recognised the importance of protecting troops and war plans. However, he stated public access to diverse perspectives on government actions was “more important than ever”.
The Times said the policy unlawfully restricted essential newsgathering techniques. It argued it gave the Pentagon “unfettered” discretion to impose unconstitutional, viewpoint-based press restrictions.
Justice Department lawyers acknowledged the policy was partly subjective. They contended press credentialing decisions were still governed by neutral, objective criteria.
The government also argued that soliciting military personnel to disclose unauthorised information was not legally protected speech. It stated such solicitation could be a criminal act.
Judge Friedman rejected the argument that the policy aimed to prevent criminal solicitation of secrets. He said it was impossible for reporters to know if information they sought was authorised for release.
The Pentagon assembled a new press corps after many reporters surrendered their passes. The Times said this corps consisted of pro-Trump outlets, evidence the policy aimed to stifle unflattering coverage.
A New York Times spokesman said the ruling enforces constitutionally protected rights for the free press. It “reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf,” Charlie Stadtlander stated.
Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy chief Seth Stern praised the ruling. He called it “shocking” that the government argued “journalists asking questions of the government is criminal”.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The government is likely to appeal the decision.
The policy change was criticised by journalism advocates as another attack on the free press. It was implemented under Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The Associated Press has a separate pending lawsuit against Trump administration officials. It concerns its removal from the White House press corps after a dispute over naming the Gulf of Mexico.
The Sun Malaysia
