MFIA Welcomes Federal Court Ruling Striking Down Pentagon Press-Credential Policy

The Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic (MFIA)  at Yale Law School welcomed a federal court ruling striking down key provisions of a Pentagon policy that restricted journalists’ access to the building, saying the policy threatened the public’s access to independent reporting on national security and military affairs. 

The clinic earlier this month filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Pentagon Press Association, arguing that the policy violated the First Amendment by burdening routine newsgathering, granting officials sweeping discretion, and engaging in viewpoint-based retaliation against journalists. 

In a court opinion issued Friday in The New York Times Company, et al. v. Department of Defense, et al., the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia made clear that press freedom doesn’t yield to vague and discretionary government control. Judge Paul L. Friedman emphasized that “a primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will” and “the public to read what it chooses,” because “the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people.”

The case challenged a new Pentagon policy governing Pentagon Facilities Alternate Credentials, or PFACs, which reporters need to access the Pentagon press area. The policy allowed the Department of Defense to deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew credentials based on a claimed “security or safety risk,” including through vague restrictions tied to newsgathering, “solicitation,” and the receipt or publication of certain information.

The court held that the policy failed to give journalists fair notice of what conduct could cost them access. As the opinion put it, the policy “provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.” The court concluded that the policy therefore is vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The court also found that the policy was not a neutral security measure, but a tool that could be used to sideline disfavored reporters. Based on the record, the judge wrote that “[t]he record is replete with undisputed evidence that the policy is viewpoint discriminatory,” and concluded: “That is viewpoint discrimination, full stop.” The court further held that the policy thus violates the First Amendment.

“This decision reaffirms that the government cannot use vague security rationales to punish disfavored journalists for doing their job,” MFIA student Taylor Maas ’27 said. 

Research conducted by the MFIA team demonstrated to the court that reporters were welcomed into the Pentagon from the day it opened its doors in 1942, according to Rick Da ’26, another member of the MFIA team. The team’s research also showed that receipt of a press credentials was never conditioned on the content of a reporter's work or their support for an administration’s policies. The court found that the new regime represented a dramatic break from that history, giving officials sweeping discretion to determine, case by case, which journalists could remain inside the building. In practice, the court found, the policy threatened to chill basic reporting because “virtually any newsgathering could be characterized as prohibited ‘solicitation,’” and “one could easily predict that journalists would opt not to ask any questions rather than risk losing their PFACs.”

The court also rejected the idea that the harm could be repaired later. Without Pentagon access, reporters lose the ability to participate in “journalistically productive conversations,” and because “the news is time-sensitive and occurs spontaneously,” that loss “cannot be remedied retrospectively.” The court therefore granted permanent injunctive relief and held that the challenged provisions must be set aside.

In addition to blocking enforcement of the policy, the court vacated the challenged portions altogether. The opinion stressed that the constitutional defects were serious and that the Pentagon had shown no basis for preserving the unlawful provisions.

The opinion ends by emphasizing the importance of the issues at stake. In moments of military conflict, Judge Friedman wrote, “it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives” so people can evaluate what the government is doing, respond to it, and make informed choices at the ballot box. 

Yale Law School students Grace Chisholm ’27, Rick Da ’26, Stephanie Lai ’28, Taylor Maas ’27, and Tony Sjodin ’28 worked on the case.