* New York Times ( NYT ) lawsuit alleged policy violated free

speech rights

* Government said policy necessary for national security

* Judge says public should have access to information

from different perspectives

(Adds Pentagon statement in paragraph 4)

By Jack Queen

NEW YORK, March 20 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday

blocked the Trump administration's restrictive Pentagon press

access policy, which threatens journalists with being ​branded

security risks if they seek information not authorized for

public release.

The lawsuit by the New York Times ( NYT ) in Washington,

D.C., federal court alleged that policy changes by the Defense

Department last year gave it free rein to freeze out reporters

and news outlets over coverage the department did not like, in

violation of the Constitution's protections for free speech and

due process. The government disputed that characterization and

said the policy is reasonable and necessary for national

security.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his ruling that he

recognized the importance of protecting troops and war plans but

that it was "more important than ever that the public have

access to information from a variety of perspectives about what

its government is doing" in light of President Donald Trump's

recent "incursion" into Venezuela and war with Iran.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on social media that the

government disagrees with the decision and will seek an

immediate appeal.

New York Times ( NYT ) spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said the

ruling enforces constitutionally protected rights for the free

press and "reaffirms the right of The Times and other

independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's

behalf."

"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," Stadtlander said in a statement on

Friday.

MOST NEWS OUTLETS DID NOT SIGN ON TO NEW POLICY

The changes approved under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in

October 2025 state that journalists can be deemed security risks

and have their press badges revoked if they solicit unauthorized

military personnel to disclose classified, and in some cases

unclassified, information.

Of the 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association,

only one agreed to sign an acknowledgment of the new policy,

according to the Times' lawsuit. Reporters who did not sign

surrendered their press passes.

The Pentagon assembled a new press corps consisting of

pro-Trump outlets and media personalities after the exodus of

reporters, which the Times said was evidence that the policy was

aimed at stifling unflattering coverage.

The policy states that publishing sensitive information "is

generally protected by the First Amendment" but says soliciting

that information could be considered by officials when

determining whether a reporter poses a "security or safety

risk."

In its lawsuit, the Times said the policy unlawfully

restricts essential newsgathering techniques and gives the

Pentagon "unfettered" discretion to revoke passes, permitting it

to impose the type of "viewpoint-based" press restrictions

forbidden by the Constitution.

Justice Department lawyers acknowledged the policy was

partly subjective but said press credentialing decisions were

still governed by neutral, objective criteria. The government

also said soliciting military personnel to commit a crime by

disclosing unauthorized information was not legally protected

speech.

In his ruling on Friday, Friedman said the policy violated

the First and Fifth Amendments because it was vague, overly

expansive and "makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed

by the Department" a possible basis for revocation of a

journalist's pass.

He also rejected the government's argument that the policy

is aimed at preventing criminal solicitation of defense secrets

by journalists, saying it was impossible for reporters to know

whether information they seek is authorized for release.

The policy change was criticized by journalism advocates,

who called it another attack on the free press by Trump and his

administration.

Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy chief Seth Stern

praised Friday's ruling in a statement, saying it was "shocking"

that the government had argued that "journalists asking

questions of the government is criminal."

The Associated Press has a pending lawsuit against Trump

administration officials over its removal from the White House

press corps after the news agency decided to continue using the

Gulf of Mexico's established ​name, while acknowledging Trump's

executive order calling on U.S. institutions to refer to it as

the Gulf of America.

The AP said the decision was illegal viewpoint-based

discrimination, while the government countered that it had wide

discretion over press access decisions for non-public spaces.