Judge Rebukes Hegseth, Says Pentagon Violated Court Order (2)

A Washington federal judge found the Pentagon violated a court order by reinstating restrictions on press access in an opinion that sharply criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for curtailing free speech rights with the nation at war.

Senior Judge Paul Friedman of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said on Thursday that the Trump administration’s decision to remove credentialed reporters from the Pentagon in response to his ruling striking down a prior press policy “flouts the Court’s explicit directives and disregards the constitutional principles at the heart” of his March order.

In a 20-page opinion, Friedman described a dangerous “curtailment of First Amendment rights,” made “even more so in a time of war.” The judge said that he has received “dozens of letters and postcards from people across the country” over the past few weeks about what the First Amendment means to them.

“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 Bill Clinton appointee wrote.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, in a post on X, defended the department’s compliance with Friedman’s ruling last month and said the government “disagrees with the Court’s ruling and intends to appeal.”

“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,” Parnell said.

The decision is a win for the New York Times, which argued the Pentagon’s latest press policy constituted an “attempted end-run” around Friedman’s March ruling striking down a prior version of the media restrictions.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., of Gibson Dunn, an attorney for the New York Times, said in a statement that Friedman’s ruling “powerfully vindicates both the court’s authority and the First Amendment’s protections of independent journalism.”

“Today’s decision upholds our constitutional rights again and sends a clear message to the Pentagon. Compliance with a lawful order of a court is not optional; it is required in a democracy committed to the rule of law,” Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the New York Times, said in a statement.

The Defense Department’s revived press policy, issued March 23, moved media offices to a separate building and required credentialed reporters be escorted by department personnel while in the Pentagon.

It also prohibited “intentional inducement of unauthorized disclosure,” and says if a journalist offers a person anonymity to disclose information, it would create a “rebuttable presumption” that the reporter knew the employee wasn’t allowed to share it.

Reporters have previously been allowed to access parts of the Pentagon without escorts, and had offices in the building.

A Justice Department attorney argued at a March court hearing that the administration “fully complied” with the judge’s order, and that if the Times wanted to challenge the latest policy, it needed to update its lawsuit.

But Friedman wrote that the Defense Department “cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the Court to look the other way.”

“Nor can the Department take steps to circumvent the Court’s injunction and expect the Court to turn a blind eye. But that is exactly what the defendants have done by closing the Correspondents’ Corridor and imposing an escort requirement,” he said.

The judge reasoned that the Pentagon’s renewed press policy amounts to a “clarification” of restrictions he already found were unconstitutional.

And he was unpersuaded by the administration’s argument that the Times needs to “start over while the Court stands idly by,” so long as the reinstated policy “does not reinstate the exact words” of the one he struck down.

“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,” he wrote.

The new version of the press policy was issued three days after Friedman ruled that the Pentagon’s earlier media policy violated the First Amendment right to free speech.

That earlier policy gave Pentagon officials discretion to revoke press credentials if they determined the reporter posed “security or safety risk,” including by soliciting unauthorized information.

The New York Times and other outlets, including Bloomberg, refused to sign the policy and had to hand in their press credentials.

Friedman’s ruling comes amid concerns that the administration may violate court orders the president disagrees with.

The chief judge of the Washington federal trial court has indicated officials may have violated his separate court order in a challenge to the administration’s invocation of a wartime law to deport migrants to a Salvadoran prison.

The case is New York Times Co. v. Department of Defense, D.D.C., No. 1:25-cv-04218.