US Federal Judge Rules Pentagon's New Media Rules Unconstitutional

This article is reprinted from [Xinhua News Agency];

Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, March 21 — On March 20, a federal judge in the United States ruled in a case brought by The New York Times against the Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin: the Department of Defense’s restrictive regulations on the media are unconstitutional, and ordered the Pentagon to restore journalists’ access to news interviews.

Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stated that the Department of Defense’s rules are vague, overly broad, and classify any news gathering and reporting not approved by the Department as potential grounds for revoking press credentials, violating the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

On October 6, 2025, the Pentagon issued new regulations to media outlets with offices at the Department of Defense, citing “maintaining military and national security” as the reason. These included multiple restrictive measures, such as prohibiting journalists from seeking or publishing information not explicitly authorized by the Department, even if the material is not classified or obtained from outside sources. The Department of Defense required relevant media to sign an acknowledgment letter by the 14th of that month; failure to do so would result in being barred from Pentagon access.

This move was widely opposed by the media. Court documents show that among the 56 media outlets represented by the Pentagon Press Association, only one signed the acknowledgment letter. The association issued a statement saying the new regulations “aim to suppress press freedom and could even lead to journalists being prosecuted for performing their normal duties.”

On December 4, 2025, The New York Times filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Defense and Secretary Lloyd Austin, alleging that the Pentagon’s new regulations are unconstitutional and requesting the court to prevent their enforcement.

In his ruling on the 20th, Friedman stated that he recognizes the need to protect national and military security and operational plans, but given recent actions by President Trump to “invade” Venezuela and engage in conflict with Iran, “it is more important than ever for the public to understand the government’s actions from multiple perspectives.” Additionally, Friedman believed that “undisputed evidence” shows the new regulations aim to exclude “undesirable journalists.”

The New York Times welcomed Friedman’s decision. Spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said the ruling upholds the press’s constitutional rights and “reaffirms The New York Times and other independent media’s right to continue questioning the government on behalf of the public.”

On the evening of the 20th, U.S. Department of Defense spokesperson Shawn Parnell stated on social media that the Pentagon does not agree with the ruling and “will immediately appeal.”

The New York Times also accused the Pentagon of double standards in implementing the new regulations. For example, regarding the hotlines set up for whistleblowers—one for Trump allies and far-right online personalities like Laura Loomer, and another for The Washington Post that resists the new rules—the Pentagon does not oppose the former but considers the latter a violation. Friedman commented that he sees no substantial difference between the two hotlines, yet the Pentagon treats them differently.