journalism

A federal judge in the United States has agreed to block the administration of President Donald Trump from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon.

Friday’s ruling sides with The New York Times in its argument that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

US District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including those from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials.

He ruled that the Pentagon policy ultimately violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“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. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote.

Times lauds ruling

New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said the newspaper believes the 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,” Stadtlander said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer who represented the Times at a hearing earlier this month, said in a statement that the court ruling is “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”.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

It has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government lawyers wrote.

The Times’ legal team, meanwhile, claimed the policy is designed to silence unfavourable press coverage of President Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

Weeding out ‘disfavoured’ journalists

The judge said he recognises that “national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected”.

“But 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,” Friedman wrote.

Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows that the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination.

“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s [credentials],” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend his ruling for a week for an appeal. Friedman refused.

The judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists. But he said his decision to vacate the challenged policy terms applies to “all regulated parties”.

Friedman gave the Pentagon a week to file a written report on its compliance with the order.

The Times argued that the Pentagon has applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper noted that Trump ally Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who agreed to the Pentagon policy, appeared to violate the Pentagon’s prohibition on soliciting unauthorised information by promoting her “tip line”.

The government didn’t object to Loomer’s tip line but concluded that a Washington Post tip line does violate its policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.

The judge said he does not see any meaningful difference between the two tip lines.

“But the problem is that nothing in the Policy explicitly prevents the Department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently,” Friedman added.

US forces launched a military attack against Venezuela on January 3, reportedly killing over 100 people and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores, who also serves as a National Assembly deputy.

Western corporate media have played an active role in recent years in legitimizing escalated US aggression against the Venezuelan people, from whitewashing economic sanctions that killed tens of thousands (FAIR.org, 6/4/21, 6/13/22) to outright calling for a military intervention (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 11/19/25). They also exposed themselves once again as the fourth branch of the US national security state, opting not to publish information they had prior to the January 3 operation in order to “avoid endangering US troops” (FAIR.org, 1/13/26).

The brazen act of war has elicited zero dissent from the Western media establishment, no urge to challenge Trump’s return to early 20th century “gunboat diplomacy.” Worse, with the White House pushing to impose a semi-colonial protectorate and plunder Venezuela’s wealth, corporate outlets continue working overtime to normalize US imperialist predations.

Damage control

In the weeks since the attack, Western media have made a point of referring to Maduro as “arrested” (NBC, 1/5/26), “captured” (PBS, 2/10/26) or “ousted” (ABC, 1/5/26). The choice is far from innocent. By not stating that the Venezuelan leader was “kidnapped” or “abducted,” in a blatant violation of international law, establishment journalists are normalizing the US’s rogue actions, denying Maduro the proper protections of prisoner of war status (FAIR.org, 1/20/26).

But it is not just through semantic distortion that corporate outlets have quarantined any critique of the administration’s lawlessness. Another common feature has been a certain “damage control” in covering up Trump’s most outlandish statements.

After the January 3 military operation, Trump stated in a press conference that “many Americans, hundreds of thousands over the years…died because of [Maduro].” No corporate outlets reported the outrageously false statement. (A couple of factchecking pieces—CBS, 1/6/26; New York Times, 1/8/26—addressed his adjacent, essentially unfalsifiable claim that “countless Americans” died due to Maduro.)

The attempts to make Trump’s Venezuela policy claims appear more rational are not new. For instance, in presidential press conferences, he constantly said that Venezuela had “emptied” its mental institutions into the US (X, 10/15/25, 11/2/25, 12/3/25, 1/3/26). But throughout 2025, the New York Times  (11/4/25) mentioned this absurd statement just once, and the Washington Post (10/22/25, 12/21/25) did so twice.

On the domestic policy front, corporate journalists have had fewer qualms labeling Trump claims as “false,” when it comes to ending wars (CNN, 1/20/26), immigration (NBC, 2/4/26) or the 2020 US election (Guardian, 1/12/26). But they seem happy to carefully conceal or openly parrot false accusations that build the case for wars of aggression, whether in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and now Venezuela (FAIR.org, 8/1/05).

The vanishing cartel

In recent years, and especially in the second half of 2025, US officials justified escalating attacks against Venezuela on the grounds that Maduro and associates ran a drug trafficking operation, the so-called Cartel of the Suns. Trump himself, during his January 3 press conference, claimed Maduro “personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles.”

While experts consistently questioned the cartel’s existence, and specialized agencies, including the DEA, found Venezuela to play a marginal role in drug trafficking, media outlets reproduced the warmongering claims without scrutiny, citing only the denials from the Venezuelan president they have systematically demonized for over a decade (e.g., New York Times, 10/06/25; NPR, 11/12/25; CNN, 11/14/25).

But the biggest rebuff came from the Justice Department itself. When the time came to indict Maduro, US prosecutors dropped the accusation that the Venezuelan leader headed an actual drug cartel, and downgraded the Cartel of the Suns to a “patronage system.” In other words, the Justice Department was aware that the cartel charge had no substance, and instead accused Maduro of a much looser “drug trafficking conspiracy.”

But this remarkable about-face brought no accountability for the media establishment. Having spent years echoing claims that US prosecutors admitted would not hold in court, corporate outlets chose to ignore the new development, rather than exposing their shameful stenography over the years and taking responsibility for its deadly consequences. FAIR used Google to search for reporting on this crucial about-face in outlets including the Washington Post, Reuters, CNN, NBC and NPR, and found no results.

The one notable exception in this quasi-state corporate media circus was the New York Times‘ Charlie Savage (1/5/26), reporting on the administration’s quiet dropping of its casus belli. Savage wrote that this “called into greater question the legitimacy” of the administration’s designation of the Cartel of the Suns as a foreign terrorist organization. However, the piece stopped short of challenging the US military operation and illegal kidnapping of Maduro, referring to the Venezuelan leader as “captured” and “removed from power.”

The paper of record was quick to compensate for the vanishing of a flimsy regime-change trope by bringing up another one, focusing on a tried and tested dishonest narrative: Venezuela’s alleged ties with Hezbollah, one of the main opponents of the US and Israel in West Asia (FAIR.org, 5/24/19). Under the headline, “What to Know about Hezbollah’s Ties to Venezuela,” Times reporter Christina Goldbaum (1/19/26) offered nothing but a laundry list of unsubstantiated claims from anonymous officials.

Media connivance with Washington’s official narratives to justify imperialist attacks only pave the way for new iterations. Recently, in tightening the murderous blockade against Cuba, the Trump administration proffered the totally baseless claim of the Cuban government “providing a safe haven” for Hamas and Hezbollah. While the New York Times (1/30/26) uncharacteristically reminded readers that Trump offered no evidence, other outlets (NBC, 1/29/26; CNN, 1/30/26) were happy to echo the accusation uncritically.

Holding a country hostage

The media establishment’s support for US foreign policy did not end with the January 3 act of war. Since the attacks and presidential kidnapping, the Trump administration has taken control of Venezuelan oil exports at gunpoint after a month-long naval blockade that involved seizing tankers in the high seas for allegedly transporting Venezuelan crude in violation of unilateral US sanctions.

Under an initial agreement, Venezuela surrendered 30–50 million barrels for White House–picked intermediaries to transport and sell. Proceeds were deposited in bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion being returned to Carácas at the administration’s discretion (Venezuelanalysis, 1/21/26, 1/29/26). Analysts have argued that this arrangement explicitly violates the Venezuelan constitution.

Some articles have given space for Democrats to oppose the Trump deal, but mostly on the grounds of lack of transparency or opportunities for corruption (CNN, 1/15/26; Politico, 2/11/26; New York Times, 2/11/26). Readers will find no opposition on principle to the Trump administration’s Mafia-esque extortion of a sovereign nation’s natural resources, from the president himself saying the US will “keep some” of the hijacked Venezuelan oil (CNBC, 1/22/26) to Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing that the administration is “prepared to use force to ensure maximum cooperation” (New York Times, 1/28/26).

It is hard to find double standards, because no other nation on Earth unleashes this kind of gangster imperialism. But concerning Russia, Western media did not hold back from denouncing its “stealing,” “robbing” or “plundering” of Ukrainian minerals or grain, despite these resources being in territory that Russia occupies and claims sovereignty over (Washington Post, 8/10/22; Guardian, 12/11/23; DW, 8/28/23; New York Times, 6/5/22).

In a nutshell, when Washington imposed deadly sanctions against Venezuela, corporate pundits said these only targeted Maduro and were meant to promote democracy (FAIR.org, 6/14/19, 6/4/21, 6/13/22, 6/22/23). When the White House ramped up military threats, mainstream journalists parroted drug trafficking allegations (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 11/19/25). When the drug trafficking charges were exposed, Western outlets reheated baseless stories about Hezbollah. And when Trump seized Venezuelan oil at gunpoint, the only mild concern was whether he would use it to enrich himself.

True to its roots in the “yellow journalism” of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, the liberal media establishment is fully on board with Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine.” They have undoubtedly earned the title, to paraphrase Gen. Smedley Butler, of “gangster journalists for capitalism.”

Source: FAIR