Judge Paul Friedman’s ruling on Friday sided with The New York Times and said the Pentagon policy illegally restricts press credentials for reporters who chose not to consent to the new rules. In his decision, Friedman rejected arguments that the Defense Department’s approach was necessary to protect national security and said the rules unlawfully denied journalists fair notice of what routine, lawful reporting would trigger credential consequences.
Friedman, sitting in Washington, D.C., issued an order preventing the Pentagon from enforcing the challenged terms of its credentialing policy. The Pentagon had argued that the process imposed “common sense” requirements meant to protect the military from disclosure of national security information, and that it aimed to limit broad access by people the department said could pose security risks.
The Times sued in December, naming the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The newspaper said the credentialing policy violates journalists’ constitutional rights by infringing free speech and due process, and the case centered on the Pentagon’s new rules and how they would be applied to reporters’ access.
In his ruling, Friedman said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials. He said the policy also violates First Amendment and Fifth Amendment protections, describing the principles he said the framers associated with a free press and informed public as something the country should not abandon, including during periods of security concern.
Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” showed the policy was designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with reporters he said were “on board and willing to serve” the government, which he called a clear instance of viewpoint discrimination. He wrote that the policy, on its face, makes newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for credential denial, suspension or revocation, without giving journalists a way to know how to work without risking their credentials.
The judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists and said the decision to vacate the challenged policy terms applies to “all regulated parties.” The Pentagon Press Association, which includes AP reporters, called for the immediate reinstatement of credentials for all its members, describing the ruling as a day for press freedom and saying it hoped for a learning opportunity for Pentagon leadership.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell posted late Friday on X that the department disagreed with the decision and was pursuing an immediate appeal. The ruling came after the Pentagon asked Friedman to suspend his order for a week while it appealed, but Friedman refused and instead gave the department a week to file a written report on compliance with the order.
As the legal fight continues, the case also highlighted what the Times argued it saw as inconsistent enforcement of the Pentagon’s own rules. The newspaper cited an example involving Trump ally Laura Loomer, who agreed with the Pentagon policy and was said to have appeared to violate the restriction by promoting her “tip line,” while the government did not object to the Loomer tip line but concluded that a Washington Post tip line would violate the policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.
Friedman said he did not see a meaningful difference between the two tip lines and said the problem was that nothing in the policy explicitly prevented the Department from treating “these two nearly identical tip lines differently.” The Times’ attorneys also argued that the Pentagon applied its rules unevenly, as Friedman addressed the government’s request for enforcement and the Times’ claims that the policy was aimed at silencing unfavorable coverage.
In a statement, The New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said the ruling “enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country.” Stadtlander added that Americans deserve visibility into how their government is run and the actions the military takes on the public’s behalf, and The Times attorney Theodore Boutrous called the decision a “powerful rejection” of what he described as the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press during a time of war.