Federal judge rules against restrictive Pentagon press policy

A federal judge on March 20 blocked the Pentagon’s press policy that sought to bar news outlets from reporting information not officially sanctioned for release by agency heads.

The policy put forth in October 2025 by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aimed to limit reporters’ coverage of the Pentagon to official statements. Journalists seeking information outside official government channels would be deemed security risks and have their press credentials revoked, according to the policy. The White House argued the policy was in the interest of national security.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in his ruling acknowledged the importance of protecting American troops and war plans but said it was "more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing" given President Donald Trump's recent "incursion" into Venezuela and war with Iran.

Friedman's ruling on Friday comes in response to a lawsuit brought by The New York Times. The lawsuit said Hegseth’s policy violated free speech and due process protections under the Constitution.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell responded to the ruling in a statement: "We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal."

A New York Times spokesperson applauded Friedman’s decision in a statement.

"The New York Times welcomes today’s ruling, which enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country," said Charlie Stadtlander, executive director for media relations at the Times. "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. Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf."

Press advocates celebrate end of 'ridiculous' Pentagon policy

First Amendment advocates, who raised concerns about the policy when it was introduced, celebrated Friedman’s ruling.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation said the Pentagon’s move to issue the policy in the first place was "shocking."

"The judge was right to see the Pentagon’s outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn’t exactly a close call," said Seth Stern, the foundation’s chief of advocacy. "It’s shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal."

Stern lamented the ruling was issued after the Pentagon was engaged in the Iran war.

"It’s unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon’s ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," Stern said. "Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know."

Press freedoms challenged in the US

The Pentagon policy case is one of the several over the past year in which press freedoms in the U.S. have been challenged.

FBI officers in January raided the home of Hannah Natanson, a Washington Post reporter who covers the federal government. Investigators seized the investigative journalist’s phone, two laptops and a hard drive, among other items.

According to court filings in the Eastern District of Virginia, the feds said the raid was a necessary part of an investigation into government leaks. Natanson argued the high-profile and unprecedented search and seizure violated the press freedoms outlined in the Constitution and has scared sources into silence.

In a Feb. 24 order, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter denied The Washington Post’s request to have the journalist’s materials returned while also denying the FBI permission to search the devices. Porter intends for the court to search the devices.

Among other outstanding cases, The Associated Press sued the Trump administration weeks into his second term after the White House banned the outlet from administration events for refusing to use "Gulf of America" instead of "Gulf of Mexico."

Months later, NPR and PBS sued the Trump administration over its successful effort to revoke their federal funding. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributed federal funding to the outlets, was dissolved in January.

Judge appeared skeptical at hearing

The ruling out of federal court in Washington, D.C., comes after a March 6 hearing in which Friedman “looked skeptically” at the policy, particularly in light of the United States’ war in Iran, according to CNN.

At the hearing, Friedman acknowledged the Pentagon's need to keep certain information “held tightly and securely,” he added that “openness and transparency allows the public to know what their government is doing.”

“That’s what the First Amendment is all about,” Friedman said in the hearing, CNN reported.

Guidelines had barred most outlets from Pentagon

The Pentagon had first issued guidance in September that said reporters could lose their press access by attempting to obtain or publish information not authorized for public release. A new version released in October said reporters who "solicit" information not approved for public release could lose their credentials.

The policy says receiving and publishing unsolicited information, including classified information, is "generally protected by the First Amendment and would not, on its own, normally trigger denial, revocation or non-renewal" of credentials. Seeking out such information from department personnel, however, could result in journalists being labeled a "security or safety risk."

The vast majority of news outlets with Pentagon access refused to sign the new policy. Those that did included conservative news websites and networks along with non-traditional media outlets, who made up the group present at the first Pentagon news briefing under the new guidelines on Dec. 2.

Experts said it wasn’t clear whether the policy on its face violated the First Amendment, though they predicted the matter would end up in court.

That came in December, when the New York Times sued the Pentagon on allegations it violated the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

"It is exactly the type of speech- and press-restrictive scheme that the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have recognized violates the First Amendment," the complaint said.

Various other news outlets have sued President Donald Trump's administration on First Amendment grounds, including the Washington Post, NPR, PBS and the Associated Press.

Contributing by Reuters.

BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at [email protected].

USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.