A U.S. federal judge has ordered the United States Department of Defense to restore access to credentialed journalists covering military affairs, ruling that restrictions imposed under President Donald Trump were unconstitutional.
In a strongly worded decision delivered on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman directed the Pentagon to comply with an earlier court order and reinstate press credentials that had been revoked from reporters, including those from The New York Times and other major media outlets.
“The Department cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the Court to look the other way,” Friedman wrote, criticizing what he described as efforts to sidestep judicial authority.
The ruling takes aim at policies introduced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which limited journalists’ access to the Pentagon and imposed new conditions on reporting. Friedman described the actions as a “blatant attempt to circumvent a lawful order of the Court.”
“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 stated.
He added that such actions violate core constitutional principles. “The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too.”
The dispute stems from measures introduced in October, when Hegseth warned that journalists could be treated as security risks if they solicited unauthorized disclosures from military personnel. Under the policy, reporters were required to sign an agreement acknowledging the new rules or risk losing their press credentials.
Only one of the 56 member organizations of the Pentagon Press Association reportedly agreed to the terms. Others who declined were forced to surrender their press passes, effectively limiting their ability to report from within the Pentagon.
In court filings, The New York Times—the lead plaintiff in the case—argued that the Pentagon had failed to comply with a prior ruling. Instead, it introduced what it described as an “interim” policy that continued to restrict journalists’ access.
According to the newspaper, the revised rules required reporters to be escorted within the building, imposed conditions on granting anonymity to sources, and maintained other restrictions that had already been rejected by the court.
Friedman, however, rejected the Pentagon’s defense, emphasizing that the government cannot undermine constitutional protections through procedural adjustments.
Citing longstanding legal precedents, the judge underscored the importance of press freedom under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and the press.
“The protection of the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment is a fundamental principle of the American government,” he wrote, adding that the government has no authority to interfere with the free flow of information necessary for public discourse.
The ruling also highlighted broader concerns about democratic governance, particularly during periods of conflict.
“The curtailment of First Amendment rights is dangerous at any time, and even more so in a time of war,” Friedman warned.
He concluded with a stark reminder of the implications of suppressing political speech: “Suppression of political speech is the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy—as the Framers recognized when they drafted the First Amendment.”
The decision is seen as a significant victory for press freedom advocates and media organizations, reinforcing the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional rights.
With the ruling, the Pentagon is now required to fully restore access to all affected journalists, marking a major reversal of the contested policy and reaffirming protections for independent reporting on U.S. military affairs.
