A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to restore access for credentialed journalists, finding that recent actions by the Department of Defense violated a prior court ruling and raised serious constitutional concerns about press freedom and public access to information related to U.S. military operations.
In a decision issued in Washington on April 9, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled that the Pentagon failed to comply with an earlier order requiring it to reinstate press credentials and access for reporters covering the military. The ruling stems from a legal challenge led by The New York Times and other news organizations after the Defense Department imposed restrictions on journalists last year. Friedman wrote that the department’s conduct amounted to “a blatant attempt to circumvent a lawful order of the Court,” adding that it could not “simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the Court to look the other way.”
Big loss in court for Trump Administration. Federal judge rules Pentagon and Hegseth must restore press access
— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) April 9, 2026
Judge says he's ruling against the "attempt by the Secretary of Defense to dictate the information received by the American people, to control the message so that the…
The dispute centers on policies introduced under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that allowed officials to revoke press credentials if journalists were deemed security risks, including for seeking information from military personnel. In March, the court found those rules unconstitutional, concluding they violated First Amendment protections and due process. The judge ordered that journalists’ credentials be restored immediately. However, the plaintiffs argued that instead of complying, the Pentagon issued a revised “interim” policy that maintained many of the same restrictions in different form, including limits on how reporters could gather information and rules governing anonymity for sources.
Friedman determined that the revised policy did not meaningfully differ from the original. The new language prohibiting the “intentional inducement of unauthorized disclosure,” he found, effectively replicated earlier restrictions on “solicitation” of information. The court concluded that such provisions still targeted “lawful journalistic practices,” emphasizing that “obtaining and attempting to obtain information is what journalists do.” The ruling also rejected the Pentagon’s argument that changes to wording and the addition of “safe harbor” provisions resolved the legal issues, finding instead that the policy continued to create uncertainty and risk for routine reporting activities.
The court also took issue with the Pentagon’s decision to sharply limit physical access to the building. Following the March order, the department closed the Correspondents’ Corridor, a long-standing workspace for reporters inside the Pentagon, and required journalists to be escorted at all times while inside the facility. Access was restricted to pre-approved events such as press briefings. Friedman ruled that these steps undermined the intent of the court’s earlier order, which was to restore meaningful access, not merely return physical press badges. He wrote that the department had “cut off all PFAC holders’ meaningful access to the Pentagon” and rejected claims that the measures were necessary for security, noting that journalists had operated inside the building for decades without posing risks.
In its filings, the Pentagon maintained that it had addressed the legal defects identified by the court and argued that it retained authority to implement new policies consistent with security obligations. The department also stated it disagreed with the ruling and was pursuing an appeal. The Pentagon Press Association, which includes major outlets such as Reuters, ABC News, Fox News, and The New York Times, countered that the revised rules violated both the “letter and spirit” of the court’s order.
Friedman’s opinion concluded with a broader warning about the implications of the case, stating that the actions at issue reflected an effort “to control the message so that the public hears and sees only what the Secretary and the Trump Administration want them to hear and see.” He added that both the Constitution and the public demand greater transparency, reinforcing the central role of a free press in reporting on national defense and military affairs.