Federal Judge Reminds the Pentagon that the First Amendment Doesn’t Require Journalists to Salute the Approved Narrative

In a time of war, the instinct of government is often to control the narrative. That instinct met its constitutional match in U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman.

His opinion striking down the Pentagon’s press restrictions on Friday is not just a win for The New York Times, which filed suit against new Pentagon restrictions on reporting, it is a reminder that the First Amendment is not a fair-weather friend and that it is most vital when the stakes are highest.

The policy at issue, imposed in October 2025, required Pentagon reporters to agree not to solicit “unauthorized” information – even if unclassified – or risk losing their credentials. Nearly every major news organization refused to sign – from The Washington Post to Fox News – and walked away rather than submit to a gag order masquerading as a security measure. 

The Pentagon’s response? Replace mainstream news reporters with more ideologically compliant ones.

We agree that the mainstream media is often reflexively negative. The New York Time’s coverage of the Iran war seems slanted toward a desire for this engagement to be a disaster for the Trump administration, rather than a win for the free world. But the First Amendment does not leave room for viewpoint discrimination. It doesn’t play favorites.

The result of the new policy was a press corps skewed toward those willing to comply, while experienced national security reporters were pushed out. As contemporaneous reporting makes clear, the rules were widely viewed as an effort to limit aggressive journalism and reshape coverage of U.S. military operations. 

Judge Friedman saw through it.

He found that the policy “fails to provide fair notice” of what routine journalism would trigger punishment and therefore violates both the First Amendment and basic due process. That alone would be enough to doom it. But the deeper problem, again, was viewpoint discrimination.

The government, the court noted, enforced the rules selectively – encouraging journalists to use a tip line established by Trump influencer Laura Loomer. But a tip line published alongside Pentagon-related stories by The Washington Post violated the policy because it “targets military personnel and [Department] employees.” Thus information-gathering is allowed when it comes from favored voices, while similar practices by traditional news outlets are considered violations – even as threats to national security. Criticism of officials becomes “targeting,” language adjacent to labeling journalists as terrorists. Such a double standard is the living definition of authoritarian speech regulation.

Friedman’s opinion drives the point home with a line that should be framed in every newsroom:

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people, and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.” 

The Pentagon argued that the policy was necessary to prevent leaks. But the First Amendment does not permit the government to suppress lawful newsgathering simply because it is inconvenient or uncomfortable. Nor can it condition access on ideological compliance.
​
Judge Friedman’s injunction restores access for journalists and, more importantly, recognizes a constitutional principle – the government may not pick or vet its press corps.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS