April 10 (UPI) — A federal judge has again ordered the Pentagon to restore access to credentialed journalists, ruling the Trump administration was attempting to flout his previous order by disguising it as an interim rule.
“The Department cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the court to look the other way,” U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his Thursday ruling, obtained by Courthouse News.
The Department of Defense has said it intends to appeal.
The ruling comes in a case filed by The New York Times challenging a policy instituted by the Department of Defense in October requiring all journalists with access to the Pentagon to sign a form acknowledging they could have their credentials revoked for collecting unauthorized information.
Most Pentagon reporters declined and surrendered their credentials.
Last month, Friedman ruled the policy was unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the credentials of seven journalists with The Times.
As the Defense Department said it planned to appeal the ruling, it unveiled a new revised policy that moved their office space outside the Pentagon building and required credentialed journalists to be escorted by Defense personnel at all times within it.
The Times again challenged the new, revised rule, accusing it of being a Trump administration attempt to defy Friedman’s order.
Friedman on Thursday agreed, finding that instead of returning the credentials to the Times’ journalists and restoring their access to the Pentagon, the Trump administration instead cut off access to all journalists.
“The court cannot conclude this opinion without noting once again what this case is really about: the attempt by the secretary of defense to dictate the information received by the American people, to control the message so that the public hears and sees only what the secretary and the Trump administration want them to hear and see,” Friedman, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote in the 20-page ruling.
“The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too.”
After the court rejected the Pentagon’s attempt to restrict the First Amendment freedoms of The Times’ reporters, it invoked a new policy with only slightly different language from the one that was struck down in order to achieve the same unconstitutional end, he said.
“The curtailment of First Amendment rights is dangerous at any time, and even more so in a time of war,” Friedman said. “Suppression of political speech is the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy — as the framers recognized when they drafted the First Amendment.”
Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for The Times, cheered Thursday’s ruling, saying it upholds the paper’s constitutional rights while sending a clear message to the Pentagon.
“Compliance with a lawful order of a court is not optional; it is required in a democracy committed to the rule of law,” Stadtlander said in a statement.
“We are pleased that Judge Friedman saw the revised policy issued by the Pentagon after his last decision for what it was: a poorly disguised attempt to continue to violate the constitutional rights of The Times and its journalists.”
In announcing the Pentagon’s intention to appeal, Sean Parnell, assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs, argued that they have at all times complied with the court’s original order, saying the revised policy addressed all concerns raised in Friedman’s March 20 opinion.
“The department remains committed to press access at the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation,” he said in a statement.
The Trump administration has been repeatedly accused by critics of taking actions aimed at influencing media coverage, from the October memorandum concerning Pentagon reporters to restricting access to outlets over editorial decisions and seizing control of the White House press pool.
About the Author
