Bill Clinton

April 10 (UPI) — A federal judge has again ordered the Pentagon to restore access to credentialed journalists, ruling the Trump administration was attempting to flout his previous order by disguising it as an interim rule.

“The Department cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the court to look the other way,” U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his Thursday ruling, obtained by Courthouse News.

The Department of Defense has said it intends to appeal.

The ruling comes in a case filed by The New York Times challenging a policy instituted by the Department of Defense in October requiring all journalists with access to the Pentagon to sign a form acknowledging they could have their credentials revoked for collecting unauthorized information.

Most Pentagon reporters declined and surrendered their credentials.

Last month, Friedman ruled the policy was unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the credentials of seven journalists with The Times.

As the Defense Department said it planned to appeal the ruling, it unveiled a new revised policy that moved their office space outside the Pentagon building and required credentialed journalists to be escorted by Defense personnel at all times within it.

The Times again challenged the new, revised rule, accusing it of being a Trump administration attempt to defy Friedman’s order.

Friedman on Thursday agreed, finding that instead of returning the credentials to the Times’ journalists and restoring their access to the Pentagon, the Trump administration instead cut off access to all journalists.

“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,” Friedman, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote in the 20-page ruling.

“The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too.”

After the court rejected the Pentagon’s attempt to restrict the First Amendment freedoms of The Times’ reporters, it invoked a new policy with only slightly different language from the one that was struck down in order to achieve the same unconstitutional end, he said.

“The curtailment of First Amendment rights is dangerous at any time, and even more so in a time of war,” Friedman said. “Suppression of political speech is the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy — as the framers recognized when they drafted the First Amendment.”

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for The Times, cheered Thursday’s ruling, saying it upholds the paper’s constitutional rights while sending a clear message to the Pentagon.

“Compliance with a lawful order of a court is not optional; it is required in a democracy committed to the rule of law,” Stadtlander said in a statement.

“We are pleased that Judge Friedman saw the revised policy issued by the Pentagon after his last decision for what it was: a poorly disguised attempt to continue to violate the constitutional rights of The Times and its journalists.”

In announcing the Pentagon’s intention to appeal, Sean Parnell, assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs, argued that they have at all times complied with the court’s original order, saying the revised policy addressed all concerns raised in Friedman’s March 20 opinion.

“The department remains committed to press access at the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation,” he said in a statement.

The Trump administration has been repeatedly accused by critics of taking actions aimed at influencing media coverage, from the October memorandum concerning Pentagon reporters to restricting access to outlets over editorial decisions and seizing control of the White House press pool.

April 2 (UPI) — The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights urged authorities in El Salvador to reconsider recent constitutional and legal changes that allow life sentences for minors as young as 12.

The agency warned Wednesday that the measure contradicts international human rights standards and obligations.

El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly approved the reform March 26, amending the country’s juvenile criminal law to permit life imprisonment for minors linked to criminal groups.

The change is part of broader constitutional changes promoted by President Nayib Bukele, and it expands the use of life sentences, previously authorized for adults, to include adolescents.

The reform accompanying a constitutional amendment promoted by the government of Nayib Bukele alters the juvenile justice system by removing previous maximum detention limits for crimes such as terrorism and organized crime, digital outlet Lexis reported.

The move is part of a broader tightening of criminal policy after ratification of a constitutional reform that authorizes life sentences for adults and now extends them to adolescents, with the stated goal of combating criminal networks and gangs.

Until now, Salvadoran law established that in severe cases, minors under 12 could face up to 10 years in detention, while those older than 16 could receive sentences of up to 15 years.

The new legal framework establishes life imprisonment as the only possible sentence for crimes such as homicide, femicide, rape and gang membership for those between ages 12 and 18, representing a major shift in the country’s juvenile justice model, Infobae reported.

The proposed measure was ratified with 57 votes in favor, marking a significant shift in the Central American country’s criminal policy.

In response to the U.N. statement, Bukele pointed to historical precedents. He recalled the implementation of the Juvenile Offender Law in 1994, adopted following U.N. recommendations, which he said contributed to conditions that enabled the growth of gangs in the country.

In a message on X, Bukele said past decisions, along with processes such as the deportation of Salvadorans during the administration of Bill Clinton, helped strengthen criminal structures that shaped decades of violence in El Salvador.

“So, no, thank you very much. Take your social experiments to other countries that have not suffered what we have suffered; maybe they will believe you (hopefully not). We are not going back to the past,” Bukele wrote.

The office of high commissioner said the reform conflicts with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires that children in conflict with the law be treated in a way that prioritizes rehabilitation and reintegration, and that detention be used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time.

“Prolonged detention is deeply harmful to children, violates several of their rights and affects their development and well-being throughout life, reducing their chances of successful reintegration into society,” spokesperson Marta Hurtado said in a statement.

The agency added that improving prison conditions and ensuring full compliance with human rights standards for all detainees remain essential.

Salvadoran magistrates defended the reform, saying it is consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child because it does not impose a sentence without the possibility of release, the newspaper La Nación reported.

The government created a mechanism that allowed those sentenced to life imprisonment to seek a review of their sentence. Under certain criteria, this could allow them to regain their freedom in a controlled manner after 25 years in prison.

If a minor is convicted of more than one crime, the sentence review would take place after 35 years in prison. If the conviction involves an aggravated or extremely serious offense, the sentence may not be reviewed until 40 years have been served.

On March 27, El Salvador marked four years under a state of emergency aimed at combating gangs, which authorities blame for the majority of homicides in the country.