A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the Defense Department is violating his earlier order to restore press access to the Pentagon, marking the second time in a month the court has sided with The New York Times in a dispute over journalist credentials.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman found that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's team attempted to evade his March 20 ruling by implementing new rules that expel all reporters from the building unless accompanied by escorts. The judge had earlier ruled that the Pentagon's credential policy violated journalists' constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
The Pentagon building serves as the headquarters for U.S. military operations. The dispute began in October when reporters from mainstream news outlets walked out rather than agree to new rules. The Times sued the Pentagon and Hegseth in December to challenge the policy.
What the Right Is Saying
Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell said the agency disagrees with the ruling and intends to appeal. Parnell has maintained that the department has at all times complied with the judge's orders, reinstating journalists' credentials and issuing a materially revised policy that addressed every concern identified by the judge.
The department has argued it has a statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation. Justice Department attorneys wrote that the plaintiffs were asking the court to prohibit the department from ever addressing security through a press credentialing policy, which they said went beyond the scope of the original order.
The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. In a series of briefings on Iran, Hegseth has frequently ignored or insulted legacy media reporters while concentrating questions from friendly conservative media.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive advocates and press freedom organizations have praised Friedman's rulings as essential protections for democratic accountability. Times attorney Theodore Boutrous called Thursday's ruling a powerful vindication of both the court's authority and the First Amendment's protections of independent journalism.
The Pentagon Press Association, which includes Associated Press reporters, said the interim policy preserves provisions Friedman deemed unconstitutional while adding new restrictions on credential holders. Journalists from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including the AP, have continued reporting on the military from outside the Pentagon.
Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, emphasized in his March ruling that the policy was designed to weed out disfavored journalists and replace them with those willing to serve the administration. He called this viewpoint discrimination, writing that recent U.S. military operations in Venezuela and Iran underscore the need for public access to government information.
What the Numbers Show
The case involves seven New York Times reporters whose credentials were revoked under the new policy. The original dispute began in October when multiple mainstream news outlets walked out simultaneously over the new credential requirements.
President Trump has taken aggressive action against media organizations in his second term, suing The Times and the Wall Street Journal, while also cutting funding for public radio and television. At the same time, Trump frequently responds to reporters who contact him directly.
Friedman's March ruling marked what legal experts described as a significant constitutional victory for press freedom advocates. The Pentagon's revised policy was issued after the original ruling but before the Thursday finding of contempt.
The Bottom Line
The judge's ruling sets up a potential showdown over press access at the highest levels of government. The Pentagon has indicated it will appeal both the March 20 decision and Thursday's finding of violation, meaning the dispute could reach a federal appellate court.
The case represents one of several ongoing battles over press access during the current administration. Journalists from legacy outlets continue to report on military operations from outside the Pentagon, while the legal process unfolds. The outcome could establish significant precedent for executive branch authority over press credentials and First Amendment protections.
What to watch: The Pentagon's appeal timeline, whether other news outlets join the lawsuit, and how military operations requiring press coverage are handled during this dispute.