Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Judge hammers Hegseth for trying to sneak illegal press rules back in
Hegseth's "new" press rules were the same rules as before. Hegseth ignored the Court's ruling and this Judge was pissed.
A federal judge smacked down Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's new attempt to write rules for Pentagon correspondents, concluding that the department has once again infringed on the First Amendment.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-04-09T22:50:54.961Z
https://www.rawstory.com/hegseth-2676695364/
A federal judge smacked down Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's new attempt to write rules for Pentagon correspondents, concluding that the department has once again infringed on the First Amendment.
The issue stems from a controversial policy issued by the Pentagon that requires reporters to commit not to publish anything leaked in violation of department policy as a condition of obtaining credentials. This rule caused every mainstream news outlet, and even most right-wing news outlets, to pull out of the press pool, leaving just a group of far-right bloggers and MAGA activists.
Last month, U.S. Senior District Judge Paul Friedman ruled this was not allowed. However, plaintiffs challenging the policy asserted that the Pentagon's "interim" policy effectively violated the terms of Friedman's order — and in a lengthy, scathing ruling issued on Thursday, Friedman agreed.
"The problem for the defendants ... is that the Department has not in fact taken 'new' action, at least with respect to the proscription on the 'inducement of unauthorized disclosure,'" wrote Friedman. "To the contrary, as explained in detail below, that proscription contained in the Interim Policy amounts to — in the Department’s words — a 'clarification' of the prohibitions contained in the original Policy that this Court held to be unconstitutional ... The Department cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking 'new' action and expect the Court to look the other way."
The "interim" policy limiting what journalists can write about the Pentagon, he wrote, constitutes “the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy.”
"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," he wrote. "The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too."
The issue stems from a controversial policy issued by the Pentagon that requires reporters to commit not to publish anything leaked in violation of department policy as a condition of obtaining credentials. This rule caused every mainstream news outlet, and even most right-wing news outlets, to pull out of the press pool, leaving just a group of far-right bloggers and MAGA activists.
Last month, U.S. Senior District Judge Paul Friedman ruled this was not allowed. However, plaintiffs challenging the policy asserted that the Pentagon's "interim" policy effectively violated the terms of Friedman's order — and in a lengthy, scathing ruling issued on Thursday, Friedman agreed.
"The problem for the defendants ... is that the Department has not in fact taken 'new' action, at least with respect to the proscription on the 'inducement of unauthorized disclosure,'" wrote Friedman. "To the contrary, as explained in detail below, that proscription contained in the Interim Policy amounts to — in the Department’s words — a 'clarification' of the prohibitions contained in the original Policy that this Court held to be unconstitutional ... The Department cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking 'new' action and expect the Court to look the other way."
The "interim" policy limiting what journalists can write about the Pentagon, he wrote, constitutes “the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy.”
"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," he wrote. "The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too."
This judge is pissed
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
