**Federal Judge Blocks Pentagon's New Journalism Policy, Sides with The New York Times** A US federal judge has ruled in favor of The New York Times, blocking the Trump administration's attempt to enforce a new policy that limits news reporters' access to the Pentagon. The policy, which was introduced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, restricts the press credentials of reporters who refuse to agree to the new rules. US District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, ruled that the policy is unlawful, citing the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process. The policy was introduced in December, and The New York Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Hegseth, claiming that it violates the journalists' constitutional rights. The Times argued that 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. Judge Friedman agreed, stating that 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. 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. The Times' spokesperson, Charlie Stadtlander, welcomed the ruling, stating that it "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country." Stadtlander added that 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. The Pentagon had argued that the policy imposes "common sense" rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information. However, Judge Friedman rejected this argument, stating that the policy ultimately violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process. The judge wrote, "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." Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer who represented the Times at a hearing earlier this month, said 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.