A federal judge has struck down some of the Defense Department’s strict controls on how journalists with access to the Pentagon are allowed to report, effectively ending a policy that caused many news outlets to leave the Pentagon press pool.
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman sided with The New York Times and reporter Julian E. Barnes, who sued in December claiming the Pentagon’s new policy violated the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the due process provision of the Constitution.
### Pentagon’s Controversial Press Access Policy
The Pentagon introduced its new press access policy last fall, requiring credentialed reporters to agree to a series of restrictions in order to maintain daily access to the building. Many major media organizations, including CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, CNN, and Fox News, declined to sign the new rules and stopped working inside the Pentagon on a day-to-day basis.
As a result, the Pentagon’s in-house press corps is now primarily made up of conservative media outlets that accepted the restrictions.
### Judge Friedman’s Ruling
Judge Friedman’s ruling halts some of the most contentious restrictions, including a provision that suggested reporters who “solicit” classified or sensitive information from military personnel could be considered security risks and barred from the building. He also struck down a section of the policy that described Pentagon access as a “privilege” rather than a “right.”
However, some rules remain in place, such as restrictions on where reporters can go inside the Pentagon without an escort.
### Pentagon’s Defense and Journalists’ Concerns
The Pentagon has maintained that it is not forcing reporters to clear their stories with the military, but is instead aiming to protect national security by preventing leaks of highly sensitive information. The military also asserts it has negotiated with news outlets.
Nonetheless, many reporters covering the military, along with the Pentagon Press Association, argued the policy could effectively restrict journalists from interacting with sources without explicit government permission.
### Impact of the Ruling
Judge Friedman ordered the Pentagon to reinstate Barnes’s and several other Times reporters’ press passes and vacated key parts of the policy. The ruling’s impact on other news organizations remains unclear.
In his statement, Friedman acknowledged the importance of protecting national security, troops, and war plans but emphasized the necessity for the public to have access to diverse perspectives about government actions, especially amid recent events like the country’s incursion into Venezuela and ongoing conflict 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,” he said.
### Concerns Over Vague and Discriminatory Restrictions
Friedman found the policy’s restrictions on “soliciting” information to be so vague that journalists could not clearly understand what behavior was prohibited, potentially discouraging them from asking any questions out of fear of losing their credentials.
He also ruled that the policy violated the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination, effectively chilling critical speech and seeking to exclude “disfavored journalists.”
The Pentagon countered that the policy was not intended to punish certain outlets or discriminate against particular viewpoints, citing its efforts to negotiate with news organizations.
### Evidence of Bias Against Mainstream Media
Judge Friedman pointed to instances where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other top Pentagon officials harshly criticized news outlets, highlighting a pattern of hostility toward the “mainstream media” while favoring more supportive outlets.
He also noted a notable inconsistency: right-wing influencer Laura Loomer was granted Pentagon access despite setting up a “tip line,” whereas a similar tip line initiative by The Washington Post was deemed inappropriate.
During a court hearing, Friedman challenged Justice Department lawyers on this discrepancy:
“Is the Washington Post tip line criminal solicitation?” the judge asked.
“I don’t think so, Your Honor,” responded DOJ attorney Michael Bruns.
“So, you’re not clear whether the Washington Post tip line constitutes criminal solicitation?” Friedman pressed.
“No, Your Honor,” Bruns replied.
“So, if you’re not clear, how can they be clear?” Friedman asked pointedly.
Bruns explained that The Washington Post’s tip line asked for information directly from military members, whereas Loomer’s tip line was more general in nature.
### Judge’s Reflection on the Role of the Press
In a tense exchange during the hearing, Friedman shared his personal experience, having lived through many military and national security conflicts, from the Vietnam War to the September 11 attacks. He underscored the critical role the press has played in helping the American public understand government actions throughout these events.
Reflecting on the Vietnam War, he noted, “the public, I think it’s fair to say, was lied to about a lot of things.” He added, “A lot of things need to be held tightly and securely, but openness and transparency allow members of the public to know what their government is doing.”
### Response from the Justice Department and Pentagon
The Justice Department and Pentagon have not yet responded to requests for comment on the ruling.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-strikes-down-restrictive-pentagon-press-policy-finding-it-violates-first-amendment/
