Pentagon Accused of Circumventing Court Ruling on Reporter Credentials

Mintesinot Nigussie

A U.S. federal judge in Washington has accused the Pentagon of attempting to sidestep a court order requiring the restoration of press access for credentialed journalists covering the Defence Department.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said the Defence Department must comply with his earlier injunction, which had ordered the immediate reinstatement of journalists’ credentials after finding that Pentagon restrictions likely violated constitutional protections for news gathering and due process.

The dispute originates from restrictions introduced in October under Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, which allowed journalists to be treated as security risks and have their press badges revoked if they solicited unauthorised military personnel for the disclosure of classified information.

Of 56 outlets in the Pentagon Press Association, only one agreed to sign the policy acknowledgment, with the remainder surrendering their access. The New York Times told the court that the Pentagon had not complied with the injunction and instead issued what it described as an interim policy that continued to restrict reporters.

At a hearing on March 30, Friedman expressed concern that the revised restrictions appeared to extend beyond the scope of the policy he had already blocked. In his ruling, Friedman said the Defence Department could not “simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action.”

The Pentagon rejected the allegation of non-compliance. Defence Department spokesman Sean Parnell said the Pentagon had fully complied with the court’s order and planned to appeal the latest decision.

The New York Times, the lead plaintiff in the case, welcomed the ruling and said the revised policy amounted to a “poorly disguised attempt” to undermine journalists’ legal rights. The Pentagon Press Association also criticised the updated rules, calling them “a clear violation of the letter and spirit” of the court’s order.

Businesses and media organisations are closely watching the legal battle, as the outcome could set important precedents for press access to government institutions.

Overall, the judge’s strong rebuke underscores the importance of judicial oversight in protecting press freedom and preventing executive agencies from circumventing court orders.