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
press freedom
After NYT Sues Over Pentagon Policy, Press Advocates 'Urge Other News Outlets to Follow'
"The only way to put an end to the Trump administration's multipronged assault on press freedom is for every news outlet to fight back at every opportunity," said the head of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Dec 04, 2025
Press freedom advocates on Thursday welcomed the New York Times' lawsuit over the US Department of Defense's "flatly unconstitutional" press policy, filed on the heels of the first briefing for what critics call the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps."
The newspaper and Times reporter Julian E. Barnes, one of several journalists who refused to sign the policy earlier this year, are suing the DOD—which President Donald Trump has dubbed the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon's chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, in the US District Court in Washington, D.C.
The plaintiffs are asking Judge Paul L. Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, to strike down provisions of the Pentagon policy that violate their First and Fifth Amendment rights, and warn that "if allowed to stand, that policy will upend the longstanding and 'healthy adversarial tension between the government, which may seek to keep its secrets' and 'the press, which may endeavor to' report them... and will deprive the public of vital information about the United States military and its leadership."
The filing notably comes not only as the DOD celebrates that dozens of "independent journalists, bloggers, and social media influencers" who "are not associated with legacy media outlets, including print media such as newspapers and magazines, and broadcast media, such as cable television news," have joined the new Pentagon Press Corps in exchange for signing the controversial agreement, but also as Trump and Hegseth face mounting outrage over boat bombings that experts argue are "war crimes, murder, or both."
Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the newspaper, said in a statement that "the Times stands with fellow news organizations across digital, print, and broadcast media, including many conservative outlets, in strongly opposing this unprecedented policy."
The paper has hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn. The Washington Post reported that "lawyers representing the Times said they discussed litigation with other news organizations but ultimately decided to proceed on their own. They said they would welcome other outlets filing their own lawsuits or amicus briefs in the Times' case."
While Parnell said in a statement that "we are aware of the New York Times lawsuit and look forward to addressing these arguments in court," journalists and media advocacy groups are already signaling support for the newspaper—which is also battling a $15 billion defamation suit refiled by the president in October.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press vice president of policy Gabe Rottman said Thursday that "the Pentagon's press access policy is unlawful because it gives government officials unchecked power over who gets a credential and who doesn't, something the First Amendment prohibits."
"The public needs independent journalism and the reporters who deliver it back in the Pentagon at a time of heightened scrutiny of the department's actions," he asserted. "We look forward to lending our voice in support of this suit."
The Pentagon Press Association said it was "encouraged by the New York Times' effort to step up and defend press freedom," while White House Correspondents' Association president Weijia Jiang declared that the WHCA "stands firmly" with the newspaper and described the suit as "a necessary and vital step to ensure journalists can do their jobs."
Clayton Weimers, executive director for Reporters Without Borders USA, said that "it's great to see the New York Times continue to proactively defend press freedom in the courts as well as on their pages. We all know by now that capitulation to Donald Trump's authoritarian impulses never works out, but fighting back will."
"This is the logical next step after the mass refusal of journalists to sign Secretary of Defense Hegseth's loyalty pledge," Weimers added. "Journalists must be able to cover the government critically and freely."
Pointing to television companies' recent settlements with the president, Freedom of the Press Foundation executive director Trevor Timm said that "in an era where news networks seem to be caving to Trump's censorious tactics left and right, it's refreshing to see the New York Times leading by example and sticking up for the First Amendment in court."
"An attack on any journalist’s rights is an attack on all. And the only way to put an end to the Trump administration's multipronged assault on press freedom is for every news outlet to fight back at every opportunity," Timm continued. "We urge other news outlets to follow the Times' lead."
"These days, the government has countless platforms of its own to tell the public what it wants it to know. A free and independent press isn't needed for that," he noted. "The Constitution guarantees one anyway precisely because the public needs the information the government does not want it to know. The Pentagon's absurd access pledge has been an affront to the First Amendment since the first day they proposed it. And we look forward to a federal judge throwing it out with the trash, where it belongs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Billionaires Destroying Our Media System and What To Do About It
In an era when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who have bought up key media, there is a growing danger that the public will not be getting the truth it needs to function in this democracy.
Nov 26, 2025
The richest man on earth owns X.
The family of the second-richest man owns Paramount, which owns CBS — and could soon own Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.
The third-richest man owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
The fourth-richest man owns The Washington Post and Amazon MGM Studios.
Another billionaire owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post.
Why are the ultra-rich buying up so much of the media? Vanity may play a part, but there’s a more pragmatic — some might say sinister — reason.
As vast wealth concentrates in the hands of a few, this small group of the ultra-wealthy may rationally fear that a majority of voters could try to confiscate their wealth — through, for example, a wealth tax.
If you’re a multibillionaire, in other words, you might view democracy as a potential threat to your net worth. New York City real estate and oil tycoon John Catsimatidis, whose net worth is estimated at $4.5 billion, donated $2.4 million to support Trump and congressional Republicans in 2024 — nearly twice as much as he gave in 2016. Why? “If you’re a billionaire, you want to stay a billionaire,” Catsimatidis told The Washington Post.
But rather than rely on Republicans, a more reliable means of stopping majorities from targeting your riches might be to control a significant share of the dwindling number of media outlets.
As a media mogul, you can effectively hedge against democracy by suppressing criticism of yourself and other plutocrats and discouraging any attempt to tax away your wealth.
And Trump has been ready to help you. In his second term of office, Trump has brazenly and illegally used the power of the presidency to punish his enemies and reward those who lavish him with praise and profits.
So it wasn’t surprising that the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos — the fourth-richest person — stopped the paper from endorsing Kamala Harris last year, as Trump rose in the polls. Or that, once Trump was elected, Bezos decreed that the Post’s opinion section must support “personal liberties and free markets.” And that he bought a proposed documentary about Melania Trump — for which she is the executive producer — for a whopping $40 million.
Bezos’s moves have led several of the Post’s top editors, journalists, and columnists to resign. Thousands of subscribers have cancelled. But the Post remains the biggest ongoing media presence in America’s capital city.
Bezos is a businessman first and foremost. His highest goal is not to inform the public but to make money. And he knows Trump can wreak havoc on his businesses by imposing unfriendly Federal Communications Commission rulings, or enforcing labor laws against him, or breaking up his companies with antitrust laws, or making it difficult for him to import what he sells.
On the other hand, Trump can also enrich Bezos — through lucrative government contracts or favorable FCC rulings or government subsidies.
It’s much the same with the family of Larry Ellison, the second-richest man.
Paramount’s CBS settled Trump’s frivolous $16 million lawsuit against CBS and canceled Stephen Colbert, much to Trump’s delight. Trump loyalist flak Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, then approved an $8 billion merger of Paramount Global, owner of CBS, and Skydance Media.
Larry Ellison’s son, David, became chief executive of the new media giant, Paramount Skydance.
In the run-up to the sale, some top brass at CBS News and its flagship “Sixty Minutes” resigned, presumably because they were pressured by Paramount not to air stories critical of Trump. No matter. Too much money was at stake.
I’m old enough to remember when CBS News would never have surrendered to a demagogic president. But that was when CBS News — the home of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite — was independent of the rest of CBS, and when the top management of CBS felt they had independent responsibilities to the American public.
Like Bezos, Larry Ellison is first and foremost a businessman who knows that Trump can help or hinder his businesses. In 2020, he hosted a fundraiser for Trump at his home. According to court records, after the 2020 election, Ellison participated in a phone call to discuss how Trump’s defeat could be contested. In June 2025, he and his firm, Oracle, were co-sponsors of Trump’s military parade in Washington.
After taking charge of CBS, David Ellison promised to gut DEI policies there, put right-wing hack Kenneth R. Weinstein into a new “ombudsman” role, and made anti-“woke” opinion journalist Bari Weiss editor-in-chief of CBS News, despite her lack of experience in either broadcasting or newsrooms.
The Guardian reports that Larry Ellison has told Trump that if Paramount gains control of Warner Bros. Discovery — which owns CNN — Paramount will fire CNN hosts whom Trump doesn’t like.
Other billionaire media owners have followed the same trajectory. Despite his sometimes contentious relationship with Trump, Elon Musk has turned X into a cesspool of right-wing propaganda. Rupert Murdoch continues to give Trump all the positive coverage imaginable. Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce and owner of Time magazine, has put Trump on the cover.
It is impossible to know the extent to which criticism of Trump and his administration has been chilled by these billionaires, or what fawning coverage has been elicited.
But we can say with some certainty that in an era when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who have bought up key media, and when a thin-skinned president is willing and able to violate laws and norms to punish or reward, there is a growing danger that the public will not be getting the truth it needs to function in this democracy.
What to do about this? Two important steps:
1. At the least, media outlets should inform their readers about any and all potential conflicts of interest, and media watchdogs and professional associations should ensure they do.
Recently, The Washington Post’s editorial board defended Trump’s razing of the East Wing of the White House to build his giant ballroom, without disclosing that Amazon is a major corporate contributor to the ballroom. The Post’s editorial board also applauded Trump’s Defense Department’s decision to obtain a new generation of smaller nuclear reactors but failed to mention Bezos’s stake in X-energy, a company that’s developing small nuclear reactors. And it criticized Washington, D.C.’s refusal to accept self-driving cars without disclosing that Amazon’s self-driving car company was trying to get into the Washington, D.C. market.
These breaches are inexcusable.
2. A second step — if and when America has a saner government — is for anti-monopoly authorities to block the purchase of a major media outlet by someone with extensive businesses that could pose conflicts of interest.
Acquisition of a media company should be treated differently from the acquisition of, say, a company developing self-driving cars or small nuclear reactors, because of the media’s central role in our democracy.
3. A third step, as several of you have pointed out, is to support independent and local news media as much as possible. And read it and share it on social media.
***
As The Washington Post’s slogan used to say, democracy dies in darkness. Today, darkness is closing in because a demagogue sits in the Oval Office and so much of America’s wealth and media ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few people easily manipulated by that demagogue.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Deadline Nears, News Outlets Have No Plans to Sign 'Flatly Unconstitutional' Pentagon Press Policy
The policy unveiled last month would bar reporters from seeking or reporting information that isn't explicitly authorized by the Trump administration.
Oct 14, 2025
News outlets that cover the US Department of Defense have until 5:00 pm Tuesday to sign an agreement put forward by the Pentagon last month that bars journalists from reporting any information that hasn't been explicitly authorized by the Trump administration—but several major organizations were resolute in stating they would not be agreeing to the terms.
Outlets including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, NPR, and the trade publication Breaking Defense were among those that released statements on Monday saying they would not be signing the agreement released last month, which says journalists could be deemed a "safety or security risk" if they ask Pentagon personnel for sensitive information for reporting purposes.
Since the Department of Defense does not hold regular news briefings, many journalists who report on national security issues use their publications or social media accounts to call for tips from DOD personnel—a practice that would be treated as suspicious under the new policy and could limit outlets' access.
The Pentagon has said outlets and reporters who don't sign the document released last month will have 24 hours to turn in their press credentials—but many organizations suggested Monday they will continue reporting on the US military without credentials rather than signing.
Richard Stevenson, Washington Bureau chief for the Times, said in a statement posted on X that the new policy "threatens to punish [reporters] for ordinary news gathering protected by the First Amendment," and noted that the Pentagon's budget amounts to nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer money annually.
"The public has a right to know how the government and military are operating," said Stevenson.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has claimed the DOD is now called the Department of War, responded to the Times' statement and those of a number of other outlets with only a "hand waving" emoji.
It was the response Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray got when he said the newspaper "will continue to vigorously and fairly report on the policies and positions of the Pentagon and officials across the government."
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic—who was inadvertently added to a Pentagon Signal chat earlier this year and was sent messages regarding US plans to bomb Yemen—also said the new policy violates journalists' "First Amendment rights, and the rights of Americans who seek to know how taxpayer-funded resources and personnel are being deployed," while HuffPost editor-in-chief Whitney Snyder said the new restrictions are "flatly unconstitutional" and are "clearly aimed at snuffing out actual news-gathering at the nation’s largest and best-funded federal department.”
Right-wing outlets including The Washington Times and Newsmax, which called the new requirements "unnecessary and onerous," have also said they won't sign the new policy.
“Newsmax has no plans to sign the letter,” the network told the Times Monday. “We are working in conjunction with other media outlets to resolve the situation."
The new policy was unveiled months after Hegseth's office removed four news outlets from their long-held workspaces in the Pentagon, replacing them with right-wing One America News Network—which has agreed to the restrictions—and Breitbart News.
The DOD has also limited journalists' access to the building, barring them from most hallways without an official escort—a departure from decades of established rules that allowed reporters to travel through most of the Pentagon, except secure areas, without restrictions.
In addition to stifling the free speech of journalists, said the Pentagon Press Association (PPA) last week, the new policy also "conveys an unprecedented message of intimidation to everyone within the DOD," even those who share "entirely unclassified" information with reporters.
The restrictions warn "against any unapproved interactions with the press and even [suggest] it's criminal to speak without express permission—which plainly, it is not."
The PPA emphasized Monday that after pledging to oversee "the most transparent Department of Defense in history," the Trump administration has spent "an inordinate amount of time... systematically limiting access to information about the US military."
"Our members did nothing to create this disturbing situation," said the PPA. "Reporting by the Pentagon press corps involves issues that matter not just to the public, but also to the well-being of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardians who protect America on a daily basis. Their potential expulsion from the Pentagon should be a concern to all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular