A federal judge just blocked the Pentagon from enforcing a controversial policy that severely limited news reporters’ access to the building. This is a huge win for press freedom, as U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled that key parts of the new rules are completely unlawful. Friedman’s decision means the Pentagon can no longer illegally restrict the press credentials of journalists who chose to walk out rather than agree to the new, restrictive rules. Per AP News, He specifically ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the credentials of seven New York Times journalists, but his ruling applies to all regulated parties. The New York Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last year, arguing that the credentialing policy violated journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. Friedman agreed that the policy was designed to silence unfavorable press coverage of President Trump’s administration. Under Trump, the US is a propaganda nation Friedman found that the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials. He made it clear that the rules violated both First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process. He wrote that those who drafted the First Amendment believed the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed populace. That security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. Some of our institutions are holding on for dear life, but they're still holding. For now.Judge sides with New York Times in challenge to Pentagon policy limiting reporters' accesshttps://t.co/OEbHtLulid— Shoq (@Shoq) March 21, 2026 Friedman acknowledged that national security, the security of our troops, and war plans must be protected. However, with the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, the public must have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing. The public needs this information to support policies, protest them, or decide who to vote for in the next election. Friedman stated that undisputed evidence shows the policy was designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government. This is a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination. Shove that in your Jack Daniels bottle Pete!Judge sides with New York Times in challenge to policy limiting reporters’ access to Pentagon https://t.co/63ZOWXNTXS via @@YahooNews— BobDF (@BobDF5) March 21, 2026 The Pentagon argued that the policy imposed “common sense” rules meant to protect the military from disclosing national security information by preventing those who pose a security risk from having broad access. However, the judge pointed out the Pentagon’s inconsistent application of its own rules. For example, President Trump ally Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality, appeared to violate the policy by promoting her “tip line,” but the government didn’t object. Yet, a similar tip line from The Washington Post was deemed a violation because it supposedly “targets” military personnel. It fills my heart with warmth our Secretary of Defense is an idiotic drunken frat boy who should be in prison biting a pillow for DUIs.Judge sides with New York Times in challenge to policy limiting reporters’ access to Pentagon https://t.co/xk6tb9hmD7 via @@YahooNews— Rey Guero Diablo (@SenorHoLeeFuk) March 21, 2026 Currently, the Pentagon press corps is mostly comprised of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy, while outlets that refused, like AP and the Times, are hampered. The Pentagon is pursuing an appeal, but Friendman refused to suspend his ruling, demanding a report to show compliance with the order.Recently, the FCC chairman even threatened broadcasting licences in this effort to suppress Press Freedom. However, Hegseth has also banned staff from sharing information with Congress without permission.