Pentagon

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.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed Friday to block the Trump administration from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon, agreeing with The New York Times that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington sided with the newspaper and 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 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 it violates the First and Fifth amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“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 (credential),” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

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 attorneys wrote.

Times attorneys claim the policy is designed to silence unfavorable 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.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is reportedly sending three California-based warships and roughly 2,500 Marines to the Middle East, the second significant deployment in a week.

The three warships are part of the San Diego-based USS Boxer amphibious ready group. The Marines are from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, based at Camp Pendleton. The deployments were reported Friday by the Associated Press, citing Pentagon sources.

A 2,500-strong Marine unit accompanied by the USS Tripoli warship launched from Japan on Saturday.

The major reinforcement comes as the war’s economic shock waves are felt throughout the globe, as Washington seeks to secure vital shipping lanes and deter further attacks on energy infrastructure around the Persian Gulf.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, front, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine arrive for a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington on Thursday.

(Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)

President Trump has continued pressing allies to join his proposed coalition to patrol the Iranian-controlled Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. So far, Europe, Japan, China and Australia have refused to heed the call.

Trump on Thursday said Iran “is close to demolished,” but that securing the Strait of Hormuz remained a struggle. He suggested the U.S. was working to secure the strait not for its own oil needs, but “just to be nice” to other countries that rely on oil from the region to a much larger degree than the U.S.

Marines perform a demonstration with helicopters and the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer Oct. 18, 2025, on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

“They complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER!” Trump wrote Friday on Truth Social.

Iran continued sweeping attacks on Mideast energy facilities, a retaliation to Israeli strikes on its Iran’s South Pars field, the world’s largest natural gas field Wednesday. The fallout has dragged the gulf states into the war amid the largest energy supply disruption in history.

Iranian Shahed drones hammered Kuwait’s largest oil refinery Friday. Similar attacks triggered fires at Ras Laffan Industrial City in Qatar, bringing energy product screaming to a halt at the largest natural gas hub in the globe. Repairs are expected to take years.

Meanwhile, United Arab Emirates’ air defense systems were countering Iranian missiles overnight, and Saudi Arabia said it might respond with force if Iran continues to attack facilities in the kingdom.

An Israeli self-propelled howitzer artillery gun fires rounds toward southern Lebanon from a position in the upper Galilee in northern Israel near the border on Friday.

(Jalaa Marey / AFP via Getty Images)

Israel said Friday it had killed Esmail Ahmadi, a senior intelligence official in Iran’s Basij and deputy to its commander, in an airstrike. Officials described Ahmadi as “one of the most important pillars” of the Basij volunteer paramilitary force.

Even as Israel carries out daily decapitation airstrikes in Tehran and the U.S. deploys renewed forces to its front door, the Islamic Republic has not faltered.

Abolfazl Shekarchi, a senior spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, said American and Israeli officials could be targeted worldwide.

“From now on, based on the information we have, even recreational and tourist locations around the world will not be safe for you,” Shekarchi said.

Oil prices have surged past $100 a barrel and found a volatile new floor amid the chaos.

Financial markets have reacted with sustained losses. Wall Street has now posted its fourth consecutive week of declines, with investors increasingly pricing in the risk that higher energy costs could slow economic growth while reigniting inflation. Analysts warn that persistently elevated crude prices are likely to squeeze corporate margins and weigh on consumer spending in the United States and beyond.

The International Monetary Fund has cautioned that the conflict could push inflation higher, too. The Federal Reserve is now facing renewed uncertainty as they weigh whether to hold interest rates higher for longer in response to rising energy costs.

At a White House event on Friday, Trump maintained that the United States’ military operation is “going extremely well in Iran.”

“The difference between them and us is they had a navy two weeks ago and they have no navy anymore. It’s all at the bottom of the sea,” Trump said. “Fifty-eight ships were knocked down in two days and we have the greatest navy in the world. It is not even close.”

The president did not take questions from reporters in the room. But in unprompted remarks, he said the United States and Iran are not engaging in talks because their leaders “are all gone,” adding to the uncertainty about the war’s exit strategy.

“We are having a hard time, we want to talk to them and there is nobody to talk to,” he said. “We have nobody to talk to and you know what? We like it that way.”

WASHINGTON — Since becoming defense secretary, Pete Hegseth has found no shortage of ways to bring his strand of conservative evangelicalism into the Pentagon.

He hosts monthly Christian worship services for employees. His department’s promotional videos have displayed Bible verses alongside military footage. In speeches and interviews, he often argues the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and troops should embrace God, potentially risking the military’s secular mission and hard-won pluralism.

Now the defense secretary’s Christian rhetoric has taken on new meaning after the U.S. and Israel went to war with Iran, an Islamic theocracy.

“The mullahs are desperate and scrambling,” he said at a recent Pentagon press briefing, referring to Iran’s Shiite Muslim clerics. He later recited Psalm 144, a passage of Scripture that Jews and Christians share: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.”

Hegseth has a history of defending the Crusades, the brutal medieval wars that pitted Christians against Muslims. In his 2020 book “American Crusade,” he wrote that those who enjoy Western civilization should “thank a crusader.” Two of his tattoos draw from crusader imagery: the Jerusalem Cross and the phrase “Deus Vult,” or “God wills it,” which Hegseth has called “the rallying cry of Christian knights as they marched to Jerusalem.”

Matthew D. Taylor, a visiting scholar at Georgetown who studies religious extremism and has been a frequent Hegseth critic, said, “The U.S. voluntarily going to war against a Muslim country with the military under the leadership of Pete Hegseth is exactly the kind of scenario that people like me were warning about before the election and throughout his appointment process.”

Taylor said Hegseth’s rhetoric and leadership “can only inflame and reinforce the fears and deep animosity that the regime in Iran has towards the U.S.”

When asked whether Hegseth views the war in Iran in religious terms, a Defense Department spokesperson pointed to a recent CBS interview in which Hegseth seemed to confirm as much.

“We’re fighting religious fanatics who seek a nuclear capability in order for some religious Armageddon,” Hegseth said of Iranian leaders. “But from my perspective, I mean, obviously I’m a man of faith who encourages our troops to lean into their faith, rely on God.”

Allegations U.S. military commanders cited biblical prophecies remain unverified

Generations of evangelicals have been influenced by their own version of Armageddon and the end of the world, circulated by books like the “Left Behind” series and “The Late Great Planet Earth,” or the horror film “A Thief in the Night.” Some evangelicals espouse prophecies in which warfare involving Israel is key to bringing about the return of Jesus.

Christian Zionist pastor John Hagee, head of Christians United for Israel, said of the Iran war, “Prophetically, we’re right on cue.”

The co-founder of Hegseth’s denomination, however, does not teach this theology. Pastor Doug Wilson of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches identifies as a postmillennialist, meaning he believes most of the apocalyptic events of the Bible have already happened, paving the way for the gradual Christianization of the world before Christ’s return.

Hegseth has not said the Iran war is part of Christian prophecy. Yet days after the conflict began, claims went viral that U.S. military commanders were telling troops the war fulfilled biblical prophecies around Armageddon and the return of Christ.

The Associated Press has not been able to verify these claims, which stem from one source: Mikey Weinstein, the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog group. Based on allegations Weinstein said he received from hundreds of troops, 30 Democratic members of Congress asked the Pentagon inspector general to investigate.

In an interview with the AP, Weinstein declined to provide documentation or the original emails he received from service members. He said troops were afraid of retaliation, so they would not speak to the media, even if their identities remained protected.

Three major religion watchdog groups — the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Anti-Defamation League and the Council on American-Islamic Relations — said they have not received similar complaints. The Pentagon declined to comment on the allegations.

Hegseth wants to reform the military chaplain corps

Hegseth’s church network, the CREC, preaches a patriarchal form of Christianity, where women cannot serve in leadership, and pastors argue that homosexuality should be criminalized. Hegseth last year reposted a video in which a CREC pastor opposed women’s right to vote. Wilson, its most prominent leader, identifies as a Christian nationalist and preached at the Pentagon in February at Hegseth’s invitation.

Both Wilson and Hegseth have questioned Muslim immigration to the United States. Wilson argues the country should restrict Muslim immigration in order to remain predominantly Christian. In “American Crusade,” Hegseth lamented growing Muslim birth rates and that Muhammad was a popular boys’ name in the U.S.

As head of the armed forces, Hegseth has overseen changes that are in line with his conservative Christian worldview, including banning transgender troops, curtailing diversity initiatives and reviewing women in combat roles.

Youssef Chouhoud, a political scientist at Christopher Newport University, said, “The intrusion of Christian nationalist policy, not just Christian nationalist rhetoric … that is what’s troubling.”

Hegseth has pledged to reform the military’s chaplain corps, which provides spiritual care to troops of any faith and no faith at all. He scrapped the 2025 U.S. Army Spiritual Fitness Guide and wants to renew chaplains’ religious focus, which he said in a December video message has been minimized “in an atmosphere of political correctness and secular humanism.”

Rabbi Laurence Bazer, a retired U.S. Army colonel and chaplain, said it risks making service members feel like outsiders when the language of military leadership draws exclusively from one faith tradition.

“The U.S. military reflects the full diversity of this country — people of every faith step forward to serve,” Bazer said in a statement. “That diversity is a strength worth protecting.”

Stanley writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Peter Smith in Pittsburgh , and AP reporter Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report..

March 15 (UPI) — The Department of Defense has identified the six U.S. service members killed during a refueling mission as part of the Iran war as three members of an Air Force refueling wing and three from the Ohio Air National Guard.

The six crew members were aboard a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker — a refueling aircraft — when it crashed Thursday in western Iraq, which was considered friendly airspace.

Among the dead were four airmen assigned to the 6th Refueling Wing at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla.: Maj. John A. Klinner, 33, of Auburn, Ga.; Capt. Ariana G. Sabino, 31, of Covington, Wash.; and Tech Sgt. Ashley B. Pruitt, 34, of Bardstown, Ky. The three were part of the 99th Air Refueling Squadron based out of Sumpter Smith Joint National Guard Base in Birmingham, Ala.

Shortly after their identities were made public, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey offered her condolences on X.

“Three of the service members who lost their lives in duty to our nation were stationed at the 117th in Birmingham,” she posted. “They were not only outstanding Airmen. They were our neighbors — our fellow Alabamians. May their service and that of their families never be forgot.

Three others were assigned to the 121st Refueling Wing at Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base in Columbus, Ohio: Capt. Seth R. Kobal, 38, of Mooresville, Ind.; Capt. Curtis J. Angst, 30, of Wilmington, Ohio; and Tech Sgt. Tyler H. Simmons, 28, of Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and his wife, Fran DeWine, were mourning the loss of the three airmen who operated out of Ohio and were trained to do work that was “critical in long-distance missions in defense of our nation.”

“Every mission they undertook involved risks that they were willing to take and the courage to put the lives of others above their own,” he wrote in a post on X.

“They served with honor.”

The Pentagon said the crash that led to the service members’ deaths was under investigation. A second Boeing Stratotanker involved in the incident declared an emergency before landing in Tel Aviv with no one on board injured.

Thirteen U.S. service members have died in connection to the Iran war, which began in late February.

WASHINGTON — After two weeks of war with Iran, the Trump administration is being forced to temper its expectations of a swift end to the conflict, with U.S. intelligence and defense officials expressing doubt it can achieve the overthrow of Iran’s government and the destruction of its nuclear program through military means.

It was an outcome forewarned by analysts at the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon, who together alerted the administration to the pitfalls full-scale war with Iran would bring before President Trump decided to proceed, two U.S. officials told The Times, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Certain military goals of Operation Epic Fury laid out at the start of the war are still seen as achievable at the Pentagon, with U.S. and Israeli strikes making steady progress degrading Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, its drone program and its navy.

But a prewar U.S. intelligence assessment, that an air assault was unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic, still holds, with the intelligence community now casting doubt the assault had any more political effect than to radicalize a government already devoted to the destruction of Israel and harming the United States.

A military procession in Tehran carries the casket of Ali Shamkhani, political advisor to Iran’s last Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was also killed in U.S.-Israeli attacks.

(Atta Kenare / AFP/Getty Images)

Concern has only grown that Iran’s new government will make the fateful strategic decision to build a bomb after the war, unless Trump decides to escalate the conflict with a perilous ground invasion. And the White House now contends with a new mission imperative, created by its decision to launch the war itself, of reopening the Strait of Hormuz to vital shipping traffic that carries 20% of the world’s daily oil and liquid natural gas supply.

The foreign policy strategy Trump publicly laid out as his playbook for the conflict — to come down hard on the government, decapitating its leadership, and hope the remnants would seek mercy — has not worked, with Tehran looking for new ways to expand the war and maximize pain for the U.S. administration.

Trump has minimized the conflict as an “excursion” that would end “very soon,” while also calling it a war, vowing to take the time he needs to “finish the job.” He says it will conclude whenever he decides to end it.

It remains possible that a declaration from Trump that the fighting is over results in a ceasefire, as it did in June of last year, when Trump demanded an end to 12 days of war between Iran and Israel. But the Iranians have a vote, too — and senior leadership in the Islamic Republic have made plain they plan to continue fighting this time whether Trump likes it or not.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced that an additional expeditionary unit of 2,500 Marines was being deployed to the region to support the effort.

“Starting wars is an easy matter,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, wrote on social media. “Ending them does not happen with a few tweets.

“We will not leave you until you admit your mistake and pay its price,” he added.

It is a sore lesson for a president whose decade in public life has been distinguished by an exceptional ability to warp reality to his liking.

“The White House has created a dilemma for America: If it declares victory and ends the war, it leaves in place a weakened Iranian government with the means and renewed motivation to pursue nuclear weapons,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.

“If it presses on with the war,” Pauly added, “it risks the kind of mission creep that may eventually find American boots on the ground.”

In a news release last week, the White House said that, “from the opening hours of this historic campaign, the objectives were clear: obliterate Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity, annihilate its navy, sever its support for terrorist proxies, and ensure the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism will never acquire a nuclear weapon.”

Yet, at the start of the operation, Trump issued a promise to the people of Iran that, at the end of the U.S.-Israeli campaign, Iran’s military and paramilitary infrastructure would be so badly hobbled that a rare, generational opportunity would emerge for them to take their government back.

“To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump said. “Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

Trump said in the days that followed he would need to have a say over the next ruler, after assassinating the country’s longtime supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the Iranian system of clerics and militants defied the president, selecting in Khamenei’s son a man viewed as even more hostile to the West than his father was.

Israeli leadership, too, set out regime change as a goal of the war. Yet even their officials now say that a substantial leadership change in Tehran is an unlikely result.

Trump would go on to insist on the “unconditional surrender” from the Iranian government, a demand that he later said would be satisfied by the incapacitation of Iran’s military.

Repeating his conviction that the war will end soon, Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade in an interview Friday that he would order an end to the fighting “when I feel it. When I feel it in my bones.”

“The problem with the administration’s approach is that it has constantly shifted its goals. Some are achievable, such as degrading Iran’s conventional force. Others are not, such as picking the next leader of Iran,” said Ray Takeyh, a scholar on Iran at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The mixed messages have led to confusion at home,” Takeyh added, “and lack of planning for oil shortages and getting the Americans out of the region shows that process and personnel can actually matter.”

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign was always designed to unfold in three phases: degrading Iran’s ability to wage war, reducing Iran’s ability to repress democratic forces inside the country, and finally, encouraging the Iranian people to rise up.

“The president controls the strategy, but no president fully controls the endgame because the regime gets a vote,” Dubowitz said. “The endgame is not a scripted political transition directed from Washington. It is a regime under simultaneous military, economic, and internal pressure — to strip of its war-making and repression capabilities — and whether that produces succession, fracture, or collapse will ultimately be decided in Tehran.”

Whether the conflict will achieve the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is an equally grave question in Washington, where officials are debating over a list of stark options on how to physically destroy, bury or retrieve the fissile material that Tehran could use to build a nuclear weapon — a threat seen as only more grave under the stewardship of an angry and vengeful government.

“The war was publicly justified, to the extent it was justified at all, in terms of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. Very few strikes have been directed against nuclear-related targets, however — almost certainly because those that survived last June’s attacks are invulnerable to air attack,” said James Acton, co‑director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Unless the U.S. and Israel attempt high-risk special forces operations or a ground incursion,” he added, “Iran will end the war with its surviving nuclear infrastructure largely intact and greater incentives to build the bomb.”

Pauly agreed it is unrealistic to expect the United States and Israel can destroy Iran’s nuclear program through air power alone. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency believes Iran has roughly 440 kilograms — about 970 pounds — of 60% highly enriched uranium, possibly spread across multiple facilities.

“Securing this material will require either U.S. ground troops or, after some coercive bargain is reached, international inspectors,” Pauly said.

In an exchange with reporters last week at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had few details to offer on what U.S. options were to remove or eliminate an accessible uranium stockpile, enriched to near weapons grade, that had been buried in a U.S. operation last year intended on obliterating the nuclear threat.

Diplomacy, he suggested, might be required to secure the material.

“I will say we have a range of options, up to and including Iran deciding that they will give those up,” he told reporters, “which of course we would welcome.”