US: Pentagon must restore journalists' access, judge says

Lead

A US federal judge has ruled that the Pentagon is failing to comply with a court order requiring it to restore access to credentialed reporters, escalating a legal battle over press freedom at the US military's headquarters.

US District Judge Paul Friedman said on Thursday that the Department of Defense must comply with his earlier order, which sided with The New York Times and other news organizations challenging restrictions imposed on them last year. In his ruling, Friedman wrote: “The Department cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the Court to look the other way.” He called the Pentagon’s actions a “blatant attempt to circumvent a lawful order of the Court,” according to multiple outlets.

Coverage Comparison

Reporting from Deutsche Welle and the South China Morning Post both highlighted the judge’s rebuke of Pentagon non-compliance. Both sources emphasized that Friedman’s ruling directly addressed the Pentagon’s revised “interim” policy, which, as described in the coverage, bars reporters with press passes from entering the building without an escort and includes other rules the court had previously rejected.

Deutsche Welle’s report framed the development as a Pentagon “defiance” of the judiciary, while the South China Morning Post adopted a more neutral tone, focusing on the judge’s ruling and the lack of immediate comment from involved parties. Both outlets quoted or paraphrased Friedman’s central rebuke.

According to the South China Morning Post, representatives for The New York Times, the Justice Department, and the White House did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment on the ruling. The Pentagon said it does not comment on pending litigation, as reported by Deutsche Welle.

Key Claims

The central claim in this story is that the Pentagon has not fully complied with a court order issued on March 20, when Judge Friedman ruled in favor of journalists. The judge concluded that the original policy—introduced in October 2025 under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—violated constitutional protections for news gathering and due process.

That policy allowed the Pentagon to deem journalists security risks and revoke their press badges if they solicited unauthorized military personnel to disclose classified, and in some cases unclassified, information. According to reporting, only one of 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association agreed to sign an acknowledgment of the new policy; the rest had to hand in their press passes and report on the Pentagon from outside the facility.

The New York Times led a lawsuit challenging the policy, and Friedman’s March 20 ruling required the immediate restoration of reporters’ access. The Pentagon then issued a new “interim” policy, which, as reported by The New York Times (cited in the coverage), bars reporters with passes from entering the building without an escort and also governs when reporters can offer anonymity to a source—rules that the court had previously rejected.

The Pentagon, in a March court filing, denied violating Friedman’s prior order, saying it was “careful to address all of the legal defects that the court perceived in the prior policy,” as reported by Deutsche Welle. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell has said the administration would appeal Friedman’s March 20 decision, and in a social media post, he stated that the department has complied with the judge’s orders, though the post was cut off in the coverage.

Perspectives

From the judiciary’s perspective, Judge Friedman’s rulings reflect a clear view that the Pentagon’s actions amount to an end-run around the court’s authority. His language—calling the new policy a “blatant attempt to circumvent a lawful order”—underscores his concern that the department was simply repackaging rejected rules.

From the Pentagon’s perspective, officials maintain they have addressed the legal deficiencies identified by the court and view the appeal as the proper avenue to challenge the judge’s decision. The department’s stance is that its revised policy is a new, lawful framework, not an unlawful reinstatement.

Press freedom advocates, as implied by the legal challenge led by The New York Times, see these restrictions as a dangerous erosion of the media’s ability to report on the military, which is vital to democratic accountability. The judge also noted that ongoing US military operations in Venezuela and Iran make public access to information more pressing, a point carried by Deutsche Welle.

The broader context is a tense relationship between the current administration and the press, with the Pentagon being one of many federal agencies under scrutiny for its handling of media access. As this case moves through the appeals process, it will likely set a precedent for how far the executive branch can go in limiting press access to government facilities.