Big win for American journalists: Judge criticizes Pentagon’s ‘unlawful policy’, asks to restore press access

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled Thursday that the Pentagon was in violation of his earlier order to restore press access for journalists.Reuters reports him as saying that the new restrictions were imposed by the Defense Department because its prior rules were deemed unconstitutional.In his ruling, Friedman said the Pentagon “cannot reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ actions and expect a court to look the other way.”As part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by The New York Times, the court ruled in March that changes made by the Pentagon last year to press access, including stripping the credentials of several major outlets, violate the First Amendment as reported by the AP.However, the Pentagon responded to the March decision with even tougher sanctions.“The very next business day, the department announced it was immediately closing the ‘Correspondents’ Corridor,’ the area of ​​the Pentagon from which journalists had worked for years,” Friedman said.The Pentagon completely banned journalists from entering military headquarters without official escort, instead providing a new workspace “in an annex facility”.

‘An attempt to deny the order of the transparent court’

For decades, verified journalists from major outlets have been given badges, allowing them to roam freely around parts of the Pentagon to engage with officials and public affairs staff. The Defense Department has cited security risks for the tighter restrictions.Friedman wrote that the stringent sanctions “are not safeguards or attempts to fulfill prior commitments, but rather transparent attempts to negate the effect of this Court order.”He ordered the Defense Department to allow Times journalists and “all regulated parties” access to the Pentagon.

Pentagon disagrees, plans to appeal

Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell said on social media that the department disagrees with the decision and intends to appeal.“The Department has complied with the court’s order at all times – it has reinstated the PFAC of each journalist identified in the order and has issued a significantly revised policy that has addressed every concern identified by the court in its March 20 opinion.”He added: “The Department is committed to press access to the Pentagon while meeting its statutory obligation to ensure the secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation.”

Times lawyer: Verdict ‘affirms First Amendment’

Times lawyer Theodore Boutrous said Thursday’s decision “powerfully vindicates both the court’s authority and the First Amendment’s protection of independent journalism.” AP report.The lead plaintiff in the suit, The New York Times, had told Friedman that the Pentagon had not complied with his order, but instead issued a new “interim” policy in defiance of the court’s decision.

Widespread tension between the press and the Trump administration

Pentagon press access has become a point of broader tension between the media and the Trump administration, with officials often attacking coverage it deems distasteful.Among other measures, the Defense Department last year forced eight major outlets to vacate their verticals to make room for new, mostly conservative outlets.AFP, along with the Times, Fox News, the AP and others, have refused to sign on to the new policy, resulting in their Pentagon credentials being stripped. The current Pentagon press corps consists mostly of conservative outlets that agree with the policy.

‘Viewpoint discrimination, full stop’

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said recent U.S. military operations in Venezuela and Iran underscore the need for public access to information about government activities.“The drafters of the First Amendment believed that the security of the country required a free press and an informed people and that such security was endangered by government suppression of political speech. That principle has protected the country’s security for nearly 250 years. It should not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote last month.Friedman said the challenge policy was apparently designed to weed out “disgraced journalists” and replace them with people who are “involved and willing to serve” the administration.“That,” he wrote, “attitude is discrimination, full stop.”