Pentagon says it will appeal preliminary injunction
WASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Defense Department from enforcing its escort policy for New York Times journalists at the Pentagon, ruling that the policy likely violates the First Amendment and is retaliatory.
The decision marks the third time this court has ruled against the Pentagon’s press restrictions in a case that began in October, when the department announced a policy permitting the revocation of Pentagon credentials for journalists who collected or reported information it deemed unauthorized.
Friedman’s March ruling that the original policy was unconstitutional led the Pentagon to adopt a revised policy requiring journalists to be escorted by Defense Department personnel at all times within the building. The Times challenged the revised policy, and the court again sided against the Pentagon. The department then appealed, and in late April a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted an emergency stay, allowing the escort requirement to remain in place while the appeal proceeded. The Times subsequently filed a second lawsuit directly challenging the escort policy.
In his Tuesday opinion, Friedman said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the policy was retaliatory, pointing to numerous instances of Trump administration officials — including President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — insulting the newspaper and other news organizations.
“This Court has spoken at several points about the critical importance of protecting the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment,” Friedman wrote, quoting from one of his previous opinions in the case. “Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by government suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years.”
The Trump administration has argued the escort requirement serves national security purposes, saying it prevents the gathering and public disclosure of classified and controlled unclassified information.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the department “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and will appeal. In a statement, Parnell argued that removing the escort policy will make it easier for “sensitive and classified information to reach our adversaries.”
“Unescorted access to the Pentagon allowed journalists to observe activity patterns and develop relationships that contributed to repeated unauthorized disclosures of operational plans and intelligence,” Parnell said. “The court’s order effectively restores that risky environment at a time when protecting our military’s secrets is more critical than ever.”
Charlie Stadtlander, The New York Times’ media relations and communications executive director, called the ruling “well-reasoned” and said it “reaffirms the First Amendment rights of the press to cover the Pentagon without restrictions designed to prevent the public from knowing what the military is doing.”
The Freedom of the Press Foundation said the ruling should be followed by consequences if the Trump administration attempts another workaround. “The DoD can’t be allowed to punish journalism or evade court orders without consequences,” the group said in a statement. “If the Pentagon keeps trying to avoid this ruling, the court should respond with sanctions or contempt.”
The scope of the injunction was not immediately clear. The UPI report noted it was uncertain whether the order applies to all credentialed reporters or only those working for The New York Times.