Federal judge weighs New York Times bid to block Pentagon press credential policy

A federal judge heard arguments Friday in Washington on whether to block a Pentagon policy that stripped press credentials from journalists who refused to sign new access agreements last October. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman expressed skepticism of the government’s defense at the first hearing in the New York Times’ lawsuit against the Defense Department and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and said he would issue a ruling “as prompt a decision as I can.”

The case tests whether the Pentagon’s credentialing rules — which have left its on-site press corps composed largely of outlets that agreed to the policy — unconstitutionally restrict press freedom, a question Times attorneys say carries added urgency while the United States is engaged in active military operations abroad.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge heard arguments Friday on whether to block a Pentagon policy that stripped press credentials from journalists who refused to sign new access agreements last October, with U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman expressing skepticism of the government’s defense and promising to rule quickly.

Friedman did not immediately order the Pentagon to reinstate credentials for reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules. But his questions at the hearing — the first in the New York Times’ lawsuit against the Defense Department and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — suggested doubts about core elements of the government’s justification.

“A lot of things need to be held tightly and secure, but openness and transparency allows members of the public to know what their government is doing,” Friedman said. The judge, who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton, added that it is “more important than ever” for Americans to hear “a variety of views” about the activities of the federal government and its elected leaders.

“I intend to issue as prompt a decision as I can, because I know it’s important for lots of reasons,” Friedman said.

Times argues policy silences critical coverage

Times attorney Theodore Boutrous urged the court to block the rules, arguing the policy is depriving Americans of vital information about U.S. military operations. “It’s more important than ever for the public to know as much as they can,” Boutrous told the judge.

Times attorneys contend the policy is designed to silence press coverage unfavorable to the Trump administration. As evidence of inconsistent application, they pointed to the Pentagon’s treatment of two tip lines: the government did not object to a general tip line maintained by Trump ally Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who agreed to the policy, while determining that a Washington Post tip line violated the rules because it purportedly targeted military personnel and department employees.

“It’s mystifying,” Boutrous said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

Times spokesperson Charles Stadtlander said U.S. attacks on Iran and the resulting deaths of American troops “illuminate the public’s right to access deep, impartial reporting on the details of the military actions happening as we speak.”

Government defends rules as national security measure

Justice Department attorney Michael Bruns defended the policy as serving the government’s “compelling interest” and “statutory obligation” to protect national security information.

“The reason for the policy is the security of the Pentagon,” Bruns said. “This is not a trivial exercise.”

Friedman pressed Bruns on what standards the government uses to determine whether a reporter poses a security risk. “Don’t there have to be some criteria that are applied in a uniform way?” the judge asked. Bruns answered yes, but argued the government has “far more leeway” to restrict speech in a secure facility like the Pentagon.

‘A stark break from the past’

Yale Law School professor David Schulz, who represents the Pentagon Press Association as an intervenor in the case, said the policy marks a fundamental departure from decades of practice.

“The press has been in the building since the day it opened,” Schulz told Friedman. “It has always been there.”

Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules — including those from the Associated Press — walked out of the Pentagon last October and have continued reporting on the military from outside the building. The current on-site press corps comprises mostly outlets that agreed to the policy.

The Times sued the Defense Department and Hegseth in December, alleging the credentialing policy violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and due process. The AP, separately, is awaiting a ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals on its own lawsuit contending that the Trump administration reduced its access to presidential events in retaliation for the outlet’s refusal to follow the president’s lead in renaming the Gulf of Mexico.