A federal judge on Friday struck down various parts of a restrictive press policy launched by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last year, ruling that they trampled on the constitutional rights of journalists seeking to cover the U.S. military from inside its sprawling headquarters.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman is a major blow to Hegseth’s efforts to exert greater control over press coverage and comes as reporting on the Defense Department increases amid the war in Iran and the U.S. operation earlier this year in Venezuela.
It rescinds several provisions of the new policy that enabled the Pentagon to suspend or revoke credentials based on reports, but leaves in place other parts of the policy that were in place in previous iterations and were not subject to legal challenge.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks to members of the media during a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington, Thursday, March 19, 2026.
AFP Photos/Manuel Bals Sinita
“The primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it wants and the public to read what it chooses, without any formal prohibition,” Friedman, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a scathing opinion.
“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the security of the nation required a free press and an informed people and that this security was imperiled by government suppression of political speech,” the judge added. “This principle has kept the nation safe for nearly 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”
The New York Times objected to the policy late last year, arguing that it violated First Amendment and due process rights.
The parts of the policy that Friedman dropped required journalists to sign a pledge not to obtain or use unauthorized materials. Dozens of news organizations, including The Times and CNN, refused to approve, denying reporters press badges that give them access to the Pentagon.
Friedman ordered officials to return the press badges of seven Times national security reporters who lost access to the Pentagon last year.
“The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our forces must be protected, and war plans must be protected,” Friedman wrote. “But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public has access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing — so that the public can support the government’s policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and make a decision based on full, complete, and open information for whom to vote in the next election.”
CNN has reached out to the Department of Defense and the New York Times for comment.
“The district court’s decision is a powerful repudiation of the Pentagon’s efforts to impede the freedom of the press and the transmission of vital information to the American people during a time of war,” First Amendment lawyer Theodore Boutros, who represents the Times in the lawsuit, told CNN.
Another ruling against Hegseth on the First Amendment
Friedman became the second judge in recent weeks to conclude that Hegseth was playing fast and loose with First Amendment protections.
Last month, another judge in the same court said the secretary violated a Democratic senator’s free speech rights when he tried to retaliate against the lawmaker for urging U.S. service members to reject illegal orders.
Friedman on Friday pointed to various statements by Hegseth and his aides that he said showed the department was “openly hostile” to reporting by major news organizations whose stories it deemed “unfavorable, but receptive to outlets that have expressed support for the Trump administration in the past.”
“The indisputable evidence reflects the policy’s true purpose and practical effect: to eliminate unwanted journalists — those who were not, in the department’s view, ‘on board and willing to serve,’ and to replace them with existing news entities,” he wrote. “This is viewpoint discrimination, full stop.”
Friedman also agreed with the Times that the policy conflicted with due process rights because it was vague and thus could be inadvertently violated by reporters seeking to adhere to it.
“The primary way journalists obtain information is by asking questions,” he wrote. “Under the terms of this policy, basic journalistic practices that plaintiffs and others engage in every day — such as asking questions of department employees — can lead to a determination by management that a journalist poses a security or safety risk.”
“It’s unfortunate that it took this long for this ridiculous Pentagon policy to be put in the trash,” said Seth Stern, head of advocacy at the Foundation for Freedom of the Press.
“Especially now that we are spending money and blood on another war based on ever-changing pretexts, journalists must redouble their commitment to knowing what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than repeating ‘authorized’ narratives,” Stern said in a statement.
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN Wire & 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Company. Discovery. All rights reserved.