Federal judge strikes down Pentagon's press access policy

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has struck down the Pentagon's press access policy, finding it violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled late Friday in favor of The New York Times, which brought a lawsuit challenging the policy.

The new Defense Department rules, implemented in October 2025, required reporters to sign a document advising them that their access to the Pentagon might be revoked if they are "reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk," based on such things as "unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure of" information that might be "sensitive," even if it's unclassified.

"[T]o state the obvious, obtaining and attempting to obtain information is what journalists do," Friedman wrote. "Under the Policy's terms, then, essential journalistic practices that the plaintiffs and others engage in every day -- such as asking questions of Department employees -- could trigger a determination by the Department that a journalist poses a security or safety risk."

The Fifth Amendment's due process clause does not allow for a standard so vague that it leaves reporters wondering whether they might violate it simply for asking questions, Friedman wrote.

"Given this uncertainty, one could easily predict that journalists would opt not to ask any questions rather than risk losing their [press passes]," he wrote.

In the ruling, Friedman argued that the policy violates the First Amendment's prohibition on viewpoint discrimination and noted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used a "waving-hand emoji" on X in response to a statement from The New York Times announcing its journalists had declined to sign the new policy acknowledgment.

"In sum, the undisputed evidence reflects the Policy's true purpose and practical effect: to weed out disfavored journalists -- those who were not, in the Department's view, 'on board and willing to serve,'  ... and replace them with news entities that are," Friedman wrote. "That is viewpoint discrimination, full stop."

Friedman invoked the recent military actions in Venezuela and Iran to show why the public's right to know about the government's actions is now "more important than ever."

"[E]specially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war 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 wrote. "As Justice [Louis] Brandeis correctly observed, 'sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants.'"

Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's assistant secretary for public affairs, said in a statement on social media: "We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal."

In a statement on social media, a spokesperson for The New York Times said the judge's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country."

"Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars," the spokesperson, Charlie Stadtlander, said in the statement. "Today's ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."

The Pentagon Press Association said it "celebrates" the judge's decision while calling for the "immediate reinstatement" of its members' credentials.