by
Anna
Moneymaker/Getty
Images)
The
Defense
Department’s
strategy
of
flipping
the
bird
to
judges
while
insisting
that
they’re
just
scratching
their
eyebrow
with
their
middle
finger
continues
to
pay
off
bigly.
For
the
second
time
in
a
month,
Judge
Paul
Friedman
voided
the
Pentagon’s
press
policy
and
ordered
DoD
to
let
reporters
back
in
the
building.
And,
once
again,
it
was
Pentagon
leadership
shooting
their
mouths
off
that
did
them
in.
“The
Department
cannot
simply
reinstate
an
unlawful
policy
under
the
guise
of
taking
‘new’
action
and
expect
the
Court
to
look
the
other
way,”
Judge
Friedman
wrote.
“Nor
can
the
Department
take
steps
to
circumvent
the
Court’s
injunction
and
expect
the
Court
to
turn
a
blind
eye.”
There
may
be
no
member
of
the
Trump
administration
who
hates
the
media
more
than
Defense
Secretary
Pete
Hegseth.
The
former
Fox
News
weekend
host
—
ironic,
isn’t
it?
—
suffered
a
humiliating
confirmation
process,
during
which
revelations
of
his
drunkenness,
infidelity,
and
utter
lack
of
managerial
skills
dominated
the
headlines.
Once
in
office,
he
took
immediate
steps
to
evict
mainstream
media
outlets
from
the
building.
In
September,
he
rolled
out
a
new policy for
the
Pentagon
press
corps,
requiring
journalists
to
agree
not
to
solicit
or
publish
any
“unauthorized”
information
in
exchange
for
access
to
the
building.
In
October,
reporters
surrendered
their
Pentagon
Facilities
Alternate
Credentials
(PFACs)
en
masse
after
refusing
to
become
glorified
stenographers.
They
were
replaced
by
a
parade
of
rightwing
shit-stirrers,
like
Laura
Loomer,
Mike
Lindell,
and
Tim
Pool,
whom
Pentagon
Press
Secretary
Kingsley
Wilson
greeted
as
the
“next
generation.”
“The
legacy
media
chose
to
self-deport,”
she
sneered,
adding
that
“It’s
disgraceful
that
they
call
themselves
journalists
and
we
told
them
as
such,
right?”
This
frank
admission
that
the
actual
journalists
—
including
Fox
and
Newsmax
—
had
been
booted
based
on
their
First
Amendment
protected
speech
featured
prominently
in
Judge
Friedman’s
March
20
grant
of
summary
judgment
in
favor
of
the
New
York
Times.
“In
sum,
the
undisputed
evidence
reflects
the
Policy’s
true
purpose
and
practical
effect:
to
weed
out
disfavored
journalists—those
who
were
not,
in
the
Department’s
view,
‘on
board
and
willing
to
serve,’
—and
replace
them
with
news
entities
that
are,”
he
concluded.
“That
is
viewpoint
discrimination,
full
stop.”
The
government
requested
that
the
court
allow
it
to
go
back
and
clarify
the
policy,
but
the
court
refused,
finding
that
vacatur
was
the
only
appropriate
remedy.
And
yet,
just
four
days
later,
the
Department
issued
a
“revised”
interim
policy
that
looked
quite
familiar.
The
new
policy
banished
reporters
from
the
historic
Correspondents’
Corridor
and
relocated
them
to
a
Pentagon
library
annex
that,
at
the
time
of
the
ruling,
had
not
yet
opened.
In
the
meantime,
credentialed
journalists
could
access
the
main
building
only
if
they
had
a
scheduled,
approved
appointment
and
were
escorted
at
all
times.
NYT
reporter
Julian
Barnes,
a
veteran
Pentagon
correspondent,
showed
up
for
a
pre-approved
interview
on
March
31,
arrived
early,
showed
his
credentials,
and
was
immediately
ejected
from
the
building
because
PFAC
holders
must
enter
through
Corridor
8,
not
the
Visitor’s
Center
where
his
escort
was
supposed
to
meet
him.
His
interview
was
then
postponed.
DOJ
smirked
that
the
physical
access
restrictions
weren’t
covered
by
the
original
order,
the
new
credentialing
language
was
“meaningfully
different”
from
the
old
language,
and
anyway
the
press
library
has
WiFi.
They
also
complained
that
NYT
filed
a
motion
to
compel
without
conferring
—
which
is
kind
of
amazing
when
your
last
email
ended
with
“we
will
not
address
your
arguments
in
response
in
any
motion
you
may
file.”
Commander
Timothy
Parlatore,
the
policy’s
architect
and
DOD’s
own
counsel,
gave
the
game
away
when
he
admitted
that
the
new
policy
“used
more
words
to
say
the
same
thing.”
But
even
if
Parlatore
had
the
ability
to
clamp
it,
the
outcome
would
have
been
the
same.
Replacing
the
prohibition
on
“soliciting”
non-public
or
unauthorized
classified
or
unclassified
information
with
a
prohibition
on
“encouraging,
inducing,
or
requesting”
it
yet
another
middle
finger
—
albeit
one
gesturing
toward
a
thesaurus.
The
judge
was
not
amused:
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.
The
Constitution
demands
better.
The
American
public
demands
better,
too.
Naturally
the
Department
has
appealed.
Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:
