A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has struck down a Pentagon policy restricting journalists’ access, ruling that it breached constitutional protections for free speech and due process. The decision followed a legal challenge brought by The New York Times, which argued the rules unfairly limited reporting on the US military.
Get today's headlines by email 
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman concluded that the policy violated both the First and Fifth Amendments. He found that the measures imposed by the Defence Department were overly broad and created uncertainty for reporters attempting to carry out routine journalistic work.
Court rules in favour of media freedom
In his ruling, Friedman emphasised that seeking information is a fundamental part of journalism and warned that the policy risked discouraging reporters from asking questions out of fear of losing access.
The contested policy, introduced in October 2025, required journalists to sign agreements acknowledging that their access to the Pentagon could be revoked if they were deemed a potential security risk. This included actions such as attempting to obtain information considered sensitive, even if it was not classified.
Friedman said the criteria were too vague, potentially leaving journalists unsure whether standard reporting practices could result in penalties. He noted that such ambiguity could lead to self-censorship, undermining the role of the press in holding government to account.
The judge also criticised what he described as “viewpoint discrimination", arguing that the policy appeared to favour certain outlets while excluding others seen as less supportive of the administration.
Impact on media access
The ruling effectively blocks enforcement of the policy and orders the restoration of press credentials for affected journalists. It applies broadly to media organisations that had lost access after refusing to comply with the new rules.
Many major news outlets had rejected the policy when it was introduced, arguing that it placed unacceptable limits on their ability to gather and report information. The restrictions had significantly reduced the number of journalists able to report from inside the Pentagon.
Press freedom advocates welcomed the court’s decision, describing it as a reaffirmation of the importance of independent reporting, particularly during periods of military conflict.
Government response and next steps
The Pentagon has said it disagrees with the ruling and plans to appeal. Officials have defended the policy as a necessary measure to protect national security and prevent unauthorised disclosures.
However, the court’s decision underscores the ongoing tension between security concerns and the public’s right to access information about government actions. Judge Friedman noted that transparency is especially critical during times of conflict, when citizens rely on accurate and diverse reporting to form their views.
Join the discussion? 
Already a member? 
Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 21 March 2026