A federal judge handed another victory to The New York Times in its challenge to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth‘s more restrictive press policies, this time sidelining a rule that any journalist must have an official escort in visits to the Pentagon.
In granting a preliminary injunction to the Times, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman sided with the Times’ contention that “their ability to interview varied sources from across the Department, engage in spontaneous conversations, and develop relationships with sources—which the record evidence demonstrates are essential aspects of covering the Pentagon—is inescapably burdened by the requirement to obtain, in advance, an escort for each and every visit to the Pentagon.”
Read the judge’s decision on press access to the Pentagon.
In March, shortly after a federal judge ruled that a previous set of Hegseth’s press restrictions were unconstitutional, the Pentagon implemented a new set of interim guidelines, including the one requiring press escorts. Friedman also struck down a number of those new restrictions, but the escort policy has remained in place as the Pentagon pursued an appeal.
Last month, the Times sought to block the press escort policy, as its attorneys wrote that the Pentagon’s restrictions were retaliatory, designed to punish news outlets for publishing stories that they disfavor. In his ruling, Friedman cited Hegseth’s statements attacking the media, including remarks in which he called coverage an “endless stream of garbage” and to the “legacy Trump-hating press.”
The judge also rejected the Pentagon’s rationale for the policy as “facially dubious,” including that it increased the risk of journalists obtaining sensitive information. The judge wrote, “Why would it be that the timing of a journalist’s question increases the likelihood that a Department official would disclose classified information? Is the implication that a Department official is more likely to divulge such information while, say, in line at Starbucks? Based on what? The Department offers no answer to these questions.” The judge noted that the Pentagon, at 6.5 million square feet, includes thousand of “cleaning and maintenance professionals, contractors, consultants, representatives of other government agencies, and retail and cafeteria workers, who move around areas of the building unescorted every day.”
A Pentagon spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But when the Times challenged the escort policy, Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement that the Times lawsuit, “while dressed up to look like a constitutional challenge, is nothing more than an attempt to remove the barriers to them getting their hands on classified information. They want to roam the halls of the Pentagon freely and without an escort – a privilege that they do not have in any other federal building. The Department’s policy is completely lawful and narrowly designed to protect national security information from unlawful criminal disclosure.”
A Times spokesperson said, “Today’s well-reasoned decision reaffirms the First Amendment rights of the press to cover the Pentagon without restrictions designed to prevent the public from knowing what the military is doing. The court recognized that the Pentagon’s hastily implemented new policy was a clear violation of the Constitution.”
Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, and don't get your facts wrong.
Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );