Share and Follow
President Donald Trump salutes as he attends a military parade commemorating the Army”s 250th anniversary, coinciding with his 79th birthday, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Washington, as Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and first lady Melania Trump, watch. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson).
The New York Times recently achieved a significant victory against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s press restrictions, which were criticized as violations of the First Amendment. Following this victory, the newspaper has informed a court that the government swiftly introduced a new policy instead of adhering to the court’s decision. In response, a judge has condemned this maneuver as a “dangerous” threat to press freedom, especially during wartime.
In his 20-page opinion issued on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman emphasized the importance of the First Amendment, referencing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent statement that it “is no word game.”
Judge Friedman, appointed by Bill Clinton, highlighted how he had previously ruled on March 20 that the Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials (PFACs) posed a significant threat to free speech and press freedoms, which both the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit have recognized as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The lawsuit, initiated by the Times in December, argued that as the Defense Department rebranded itself as the Department of War, it was excluding critical media voices while welcoming those aligned with the administration’s views.
The newspaper pointed out that figures like Mike Lindell, a controversial 2020 election conspiracy theorist and pillow entrepreneur, along with other staunch supporters of President Donald Trump, were granted press access at the Pentagon. In contrast, the Times and other media outlets that declined to sign loyalty pledges—which prohibited the reporting of unapproved information, even if it was unclassified—were denied access.
Rather than signing on, many journalists exited the Pentagon in October and forfeited their badges. Several conservative media organizations followed suit in refusing to sign a policy that contemplated expulsion or more serious penalties for reporting, such as being branded a “security or safety risk.”
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.”