SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
freedom of the press foundation
Siding With NYT, US Judge Blocks 'Outrageous' Pentagon Press Policy
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
Mar 20, 2026
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"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," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Retaliation? Nashville Journalist Detained by ICE After Reporting on Trump Crackdown
"ICE abductions of noncitizen journalists take the reporters best equipped to cover immigration enforcement off the beat."
Mar 06, 2026
Press freedom groups on Friday were calling for the immediate release of Estefany Rodríguez, a journalist with Nashville Noticias and Univision 42 Nashville, after she was detained by federal immigration agents while traveling in her marked press vehicle.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation said it was not yet clear whether Rodríguez was detained "in retaliation for her reporting" on US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) mass detention and deportation operation under President Donald Trump.
"But we certainly wouldn't be surprised," said the group in a statement on social media. "ICE abductions of noncitizen journalists take the reporters best equipped to cover immigration enforcement off the beat."
Rodríguez was with her husband, a US citizen, on Wednesday when she was arrested outside a gym. She was in a car marked with the Nashville Noticias logo when several other vehicles surrounded her, the outlet said in a statement Friday.
"Several men got out and demanded that our colleague be taken into custody for reasons that the legal team will specify at a later date," said Nashville Noticias. "Estefany Rodríguez was taken to a detention center."
Pablo Manríquez of Migrant Insider reported Friday that Rodríguez had been taken to the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center, "a facility infamous for solitary confinement and sexual abuse by guards against detainees."
Nashville Banner reported that Rodríguez arrived in the US in 2021 on a tourist visa and then applied for political asylum. Her lawyer, Joel Coxander, told the outlet that Rodríguez had reported on armed groups in her native Colombia and had received threats for doing so, leading her to file at least one police report before coming to the US. After getting married, the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) reported, Rodríguez "filed for permission to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident."
She had never had an interaction with ICE until January 8, Nashville Banner reported, when she received a G-56 "call-in" letter asking her to come in to a local ICE office for "processing and additional information" on January 26.
Coxander told Nashville Banner that the letter advised Rodríguez to come to a meeting to "help ensure the best outcome for your case." She was also told she would receive a Notice to Appear (NTA) at the meeting, an official document initiating an immigration court case.
The local office was closed on January 26 due to inclement weather, and a makeup appointment was scheduled for February 25.
Media and an associate of Coxander's went to the ICE office two days before the rescheduled appointment to confirm whether Rodríguez had to go to the meeting and ask if the NTA could simply be sent to her attorneys. They were told no appointment was in the system for Rodríguez and a third appointment was scheduled for March 17.
Nine days later, Rodríguez was arrested, with ICE agents presenting the NTA rather than a warrant after they surrounded her car.
An ICE officer at the local office told Coxander's associate after Rodríguez was detained that she had been arrested because she was considered a "flight risk" because she had "missed" two meetings.
“She’s being told, ‘We’re holding it against you that you didn’t do this thing we told you you didn’t have to do,” Coxander told Nashville Banner. “They’re saying, ‘Hey, you didn’t show up to this invitation letter, so you’re a full flight risk.’”
Rodríguez has covered ICE's operations in Nashville. CJR reported that on Tuesday, the day before she was arrested, Rodríguez "reported from the parking lot of a residential complex where three ICE agents detained a man believed to be of Venezuelan origin."
Her arrest comes weeks after federal agents arrested journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, accusing the two US citizens of conspiring with organizers to disrupt a church service at a protest they were covering. Last June, an Emmy-winning reporter named Mario Guevara was arrested and held for more than 100 days before being deported. His deportation "is believed to be the first case of a journalist being removed from the US in retaliation for their work," wrote CJR's Carolina Abbott Galvão.
The Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition said Rodríguez is a "beloved community member and trusted journalist in the community."
"It’s not lost on us that as a reporter, Estefany honestly and courageously told real stories about the harms caused by ICE and the people they targeted and detained," said the group.
Media Action Plan, a Canada-based press freedom group, said Rodríguez's arrest "is another attack on the free press."
Rodríguez's husband set up a GoFundMe for the family, which also includes a young daughter. The fundraiser had raised nearly $9,000 as of Friday afternoon.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Ends Öztürk Deportation Effort But Press Freedom Group Still 'Disgusted That It Ever Happened'
"They’d throw out all of us who dissent if they could," warned the Freedom of the Press Foundation's chief of advocacy.
Feb 10, 2026
An immigration judge has terminated the Trump administration's effort to deport Rümeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, for criticizing Israel, her lawyers announced on Monday.
Öztürk, a 30-year-old Turkish national, was snatched off the street by masked US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Massachusetts last March and was flown to an unsanitary detention center in Louisiana, where she spent 45 days before a judge ordered her release on bail.
The US State Department had revoked Öztürk's visa, accusing her of "support for Hamas," a designated terrorist group, and creating a “hostile environment” for Jewish students.
That accusation was based solely on an opinion piece she'd co-written with other Tufts students calling for the university to divest assets from Israel over its genocide in Gaza, which had killed over 50,000 people at the time, according to official figures.
An internal memo relied upon by Secretary of State Marco Rubio provided no evidence that Öztürk had expressed support for terrorist groups or participated in any sort of antisemitic harassment.
Documents unsealed last month by a Massachusetts judge later revealed that Rubio had approved Öztürk and several other students' deportations based solely on their advocacy for Palestinian rights.
It was for this reason that an immigration judge, Roopal Patel, an employee of President Donald Trump's own Department of Justice (DOJ), ultimately found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not met its burden to prove Öztürk’s removability and ordered her case to be dropped.
“Today, I breathe a sigh of relief knowing that despite the justice system’s flaws, my case may give hope to those who have also been wronged by the US government,” Öztürk wrote in a statement Monday. “Though the pain that I and thousands of other women wrongfully imprisoned by ICE have faced cannot be undone, it is heartening to know that some justice can prevail after all.”
Many of the international students who were initially detained by ICE over their advocacy have since been freed after judges ruled their detentions unlawful. But they still spent weeks or months in detention in some cases.
Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, added that the decision "underscores the importance of allowing federal courts to review challenges to immigration detention" because otherwise "the government could punitively and unlawfully detain any noncitizen for months based solely on their speech so long as it simultaneously began removal proceedings."
Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said his organization is "thrilled that the effort to deport Rümeysa Öztürk is over," but that they "remain alarmed and disgusted that it ever happened."
"Öztürk’s case is arguably the most blatant press freedom violation of this century, and maybe the last century as well," he said. "The administration did not even bother to present a pretext for its actions—it arrested her, jailed her in horrific conditions, and sought to expel her solely because she expressed views shared by millions of Americans about one of the most important issues of our time."
Chip Gibbons, policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent, noted that the Trump administration "continues to [Öztürk] as a terrorist," even though "her only 'crime' was using the First Amendment."
Stern said that “they went after noncitizens first, not because they have any greater appreciation of the First Amendment rights of citizens, but because they’re the low-hanging fruit. They’d throw out all of us who dissent if they could.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular