Judge Sidelines Pete Hegseth Policy Requiring Pentagon Press Escorts

A federal judge handed another victory to The New York Times in its challenge to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth‘s more restrictive press policies, this time sidelining a rule that any journalist must have an official escort in visits to the Pentagon.

In granting a preliminary injunction to the Times, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman sided with the Times’ contention that “their ability to interview varied sources from across the Department, engage in spontaneous conversations, and develop relationships with sources—which the record evidence demonstrates are essential aspects of covering the Pentagon—is inescapably burdened by the requirement to obtain, in advance, an escort for each and every visit to the Pentagon.”

In March, shortly after a federal judge ruled that a previous set of Hegseth’s press restrictions were unconstitutional, the Pentagon implemented a new set of interim guidelines, including the one requiring press escorts. Friedman also struck down a number of those new restrictions, but the escort policy has remained in place as the Pentagon pursued an appeal.

Last month, the Times sought to block the press escort policy, as its attorneys wrote that the Pentagon’s restrictions were retaliatory, designed to punish news outlets for publishing stories that they disfavor. In his ruling, Friedman cited Hegseth’s statements attacking the media, including remarks in which he called coverage an “endless stream of garbage” and to the “legacy Trump-hating press.”

The judge also rejected the Pentagon’s rationale for the policy as “facially dubious,” including that it increased the risk of journalists obtaining sensitive information. The judge wrote, “Why would it be that the timing of a journalist’s question increases the likelihood that a Department official would disclose classified information? Is the implication that a Department official is more likely to divulge such information while, say, in line at Starbucks? Based on what? The Department offers no answer to these questions.” The judge noted that the Pentagon, at 6.5 million square feet, includes thousand of
“cleaning and maintenance professionals, contractors, consultants, representatives of other government agencies, and retail and cafeteria workers, who move around areas of the building unescorted every day.”

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell posted a statement on X: “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. The court’s order effectively restores that risky environment at a time when protecting our military’s secrets is more critical than ever.

“The Department has a duty to safeguard classified information and our warfighters. We will appeal this decision in order to restore the Department’s ability to secure the Pentagon Reservation and prevent further harm to national security.”

A Times spokesperson said, “Today’s well-reasoned decision 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 court recognized that the Pentagon’s hastily implemented new policy was a clear violation of the Constitution.”

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., partner at Gibson Dunn, which is representing the Times, said in a statement, “We are pleased that the district court has, once again, put a stop to the Department’s continued unconstitutional efforts to restrict independent reporting about the Pentagon. The Department’s Interim Policy, including its ‘escort requirement,’ is exactly what the district court found it to be: retaliation against The Times for exercising its First Amendment rights.”

Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.

A judge can dictate pentagon visitation policy, within their own building, upholding the “MSM” rights under the constitution..yet

The same judge can exclude camera or any people he wants from his court room..

This judge is trampling on the separation of powers under the constition..

Whether I , or you, agree with the pentagon policy..they have the right to establish policy within their own building..Not the judiciary

War would suggest both sides standing equal chance of winning.