Changes approved by Pete Hegseth in October 2025 allowed journalists to be labelled security risks and lose press access for seeking unauthorised information. (Reuters: Evam Vucci)

In short: 

A US federal judge has blocked a Pentagon policy introduced under the Trump administration that allowed journalists to be labelled security risks and lose access for seeking unauthorised information. 

The court found the rules were vague, overly broad and violated constitutional protections for free speech and due process. 

What's next? 

The government plans to appeal, while media organisations say the ruling reinforces the public's right to scrutinise military actions.

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's restrictive Pentagon press access policy, which threatens journalists with being branded security risks if they seek unauthorised information.

The lawsuit by the New York Times NYT.N alleged that policy changes made by the Defense Department last year gave the department free rein to freeze out reporters and news outlets over coverage the department did not like, in violation of the Constitution's protections for free speech and due process. 

The government disputed that characterisation and said the policy was reasonable and necessary for national security.

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's restrictive Pentagon press access policy. (Reuters: Nathan Howard)

In the Washington DC federal court, US District Judge Paul Friedman said in his ruling on Friday that he recognised the importance of protecting troops and war plans, but that it was "more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing" in light of President Donald Trump's recent "incursion" into Venezuela and the war with Iran.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on social media that the government disagreed with the decision and would seek an immediate appeal.

New York Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said the ruling enforced constitutionally protected rights for the free press and "reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf".

"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," Mr Stadtlander said in a statement on Friday.

Most news outlets did not sign on to new policy

The changes approved under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in October 2025 state that journalists can be deemed security risks and have their press badges revoked if they solicit unauthorised military personnel to disclose classified, and in some cases unclassified, information.

Of the 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association, only one agreed to sign an acknowledgement of the new policy, according to the Times' lawsuit. 

Reporters who did not sign surrendered their press passes.

The Pentagon assembled a new press corps consisting of pro-Trump outlets and media personalities after the exodus of reporters, which The Times said was evidence that the policy was aimed at stifling unflattering coverage.

The policy states that publishing sensitive information "is generally protected by the First Amendment" but says soliciting that information could be considered by officials when determining whether a reporter poses a "security or safety risk".

In its lawsuit, The Times said the policy unlawfully restricted essential newsgathering techniques and gave the Pentagon "unfettered" discretion to revoke passes, permitting it to impose the type of "viewpoint-based" press restrictions forbidden by the Constitution.

Justice Department lawyers acknowledged the policy was partly subjective but said press-credentialing decisions were still governed by neutral, objective criteria.

The government also said soliciting military personnel to commit a crime by disclosing unauthorised information was not legally protected speech.

The Pentagon is located in Washington. (AP: Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

In his ruling on Friday, Judge Friedman said the policy violated the First and Fifth amendments because it was vague, overly expansive and "makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the department" a possible basis for revocation of a journalist's pass.

He also rejected the government's argument that the policy was aimed at preventing criminal solicitation of defence secrets by journalists, and said it was impossible for reporters to know whether information they sought was authorised for release.

The policy change was criticised by journalism advocates, who called it another attack on the free press by Mr Trump and his administration.

Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy chief Seth Stern praised Friday's ruling in a statement, saying it was "shocking" that the government had argued that "journalists asking questions of the government is criminal".

The Associated Press has a pending lawsuit against Trump administration officials over its removal from the White House press corps after the news agency decided to continue using the Gulf of Mexico's established name, while acknowledging Mr Trump's executive order calling on US institutions to refer to it as the Gulf of America.

The AP said the decision was illegal, viewpoint-based discrimination, while the government countered that it had wide discretion over press access decisions for non-public spaces.

Reuters

Promotion

Top Stories

Topic:Unrest, Conflict and War

LIVE

Topic:Explainer

BREAKING

Analysis by Jacob Greber

Related stories

Analysis by Riley Stuart

Related topics

Foreign Affairs

Media Industry

United States

Top Stories

Topic:Unrest, Conflict and War

LIVE

Topic:Explainer

BREAKING

Analysis by Jacob Greber

Just In

LIVE

Topic:Police

BREAKING

Topic:Media Industry