The Dictatorship

Judge sides with NYT against policy limiting reporters’ Pentagon access

Published

2 months ago

March 22, 2026

Judge sides with NYT against policy limiting reporters’ Pentagon access

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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, D.C., 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.

The Defense Department has been letting some of the legacy media reporters that didn’t agree to the restrictions back in the Pentagon for some of Hegseth’s Iran war briefings. Hegseth rarely calls on them, although he did recently take questions from reporters like Eric Schmitt of The Times and Luis Martinez of ABC.

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.

“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.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell posted late Friday on X, “We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal.”

Times lauds ruling as boon for press freedom

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, an attorney 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 judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists. He also said his decision to vacate the challenged policy terms applies to “all regulated parties.”

Noting that part of the ruling, the Pentagon Press Association — which includes AP reporters — called for the immediate reinstatement of the credentials of all its members.

The PPA released a statement saying: “This is a great day for freedom of the press in the United States. It is also hopefully a learning opportunity for Pentagon leadership, which took extreme steps to limit press access to information in wartime.”

The Defense Departmant 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 Donald 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.

Judge finds Pentagon tried to weed out ‘disfavored’ journalists

The judge said he recognizes 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 — so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election,” 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.”

Pentagon must update judge in a week

The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend his ruling for a week for an appeal. Friedman refused. He 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 Loomera right-wing personality who agreed to the Pentagon policy, appeared to violate the Pentagon’s prohibition on soliciting unauthorized 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 doesn’t 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.

Associated Press writers Konstantin Toropin in Washington and David Bauder in New York contributed to this report.

The Dictatorship

In the wake of the Virginia ruling, where does the national redistricting arms race stand?

Published

8 hours ago

May 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

In the wake of the Virginia ruling, where does the national redistricting arms race stand?

In Virginia, a majority of the House of Delegates voted to approve a new congressional district map that was designed to help Democrats add as many as four seats in the U.S. House. A majority of the state Senate agreed, as did the commonwealth’s popularly elected governor. The issue then went to the people of Virginia, and a majority of voters backed the redistricting initiative, too.

A majority of the Virginia Supreme Court, however, rejected the plan anyway. MS NOW reported:

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a voter-approved congressional redistricting plan, ruling that Democrats violated constitutional procedures when placing the referendum on the ballot for last month’s special election. […]

In its 4-3 decision, the court on Friday found that the process used to place the amendment on the ballot did not comply with Virginia’s constitutional rules governing how such proposals must be approved by the legislature before being presented to voters. As a result, the justices upheld a lower court ruling that blocks the amendment from being certified and implemented.

For Democratic efforts on the national level, the ruling is an unexpected gut punch, especially given the fact that after Virginia voters approved the overhauled map last month, it appeared that Democrats would be able to keep pace with the GOP as part of the broader redistricting fight.

What’s more, the state Supreme Court ruling comes on the heels of a similarly brutal blow after Republican-appointed U.S. Supreme Court justices gutted the Voting Rights Act, which opened the door even further to an intensified Republican effort to erase majority-Black congressional districts in the South.

Given all of this, it’s easy to imagine many Americans responding to the head-spinning developments with a simple question: “So where do things stand now?”

Before we dig in on that, it’s worth pausing to acknowledge the absurdity of the circumstances. For generations, states redrew congressional district lines after the decennial census. There were limited exceptions, but in nearly all of those instances, mid-decade redistricting only happened when courts told states that their maps were unlawful and needed to be redone.

The idea that politicians would simply choose to start redrawing maps, in the middle of a decade, in pursuit of partisan advantages, was practically unheard of.

Last year, however, Donald Trump, fearing the results of the 2026 midterm elections and the possible accountability that would result from Democratic victories, decided that the American model needed to be discarded. It was time, the president said, to pursue what one White House official described as a campaign of “maximum warfare” in which Republican officials in key states would embrace gerrymandering without regard for fairness, norms, traditions or propriety.

The goal was simple: Deliver Republican victories in congressional races long before Americans had a chance to cast their ballots.

The result was an arms race that’s still going on — and here’s where things stand.

A map of the United States highlighting states that have redrawn their congressional maps — As of May 8, 2026. *Virginia’s voter-approved congressional redistricting plan was struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court Ben King / MS NOW; Source: MaddowBlog election analysis

Texas: Republicans in the Lone Star State got the ball rolling last summer, acting at Trump’s behest and approving a map designed to give Republicans five additional U.S. House seats. It touched off the national arms race.

California: Responding to Texas, Democratic officials in the Golden State, as well as the state’s voters, approved a map of their own designed to give Democrats five additional U.S. House seats.

Missouri: In September, state Republicans approved a map designed to give the GOP one additional seat.

North Carolina: In October, state Republicans approved a map designed to give Republicans one additional seat.

Ohio: While the redistricting effort in the Buckeye State wasn’t as brazen as it was elsewhere, Ohio’s new map diluted two Democratic-held districts, creating GOP pickup opportunities.

Utah: A state court approved a new map that will likely give Democrats one additional seat.

Florida: Just this week, Republicans completed the process on a new map designed to give Republicans as many as four additional seats.

Tennessee: Also this week, Republicans approved a new map designed to give Republicans one additional seat, taking advantage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.

Louisiana: While the newly redrawn map in the Pelican State hasn’t been formally unveiled, it will reportedly add one additional Republican seat.

Alabama: Republicans are currently moving forward with plans for a map that would give Republicans two more seats.

It’s important to emphasize that some of these maps are currently facing legal challenges, while others are still taking shape. Most of these maps would take effect during this year’s election cycle, but there’s still some uncertainty surrounding the implementation date in some states.

Nevertheless, the Virginia map that enjoyed popular public support was prepared to help mitigate an unprecedented Republican abuse. The state Supreme Court in the commonwealth appears to have removed that option.

After Virginia voters had their say, many GOP officials questioned whether the entire gerrymandering gambit had been a waste of time and effort. In the aftermath of two highly controversial court rulings, Republicans are suddenly feeling a lot better about the whole scheme.

The Dictatorship

You asked, Joe answered

Published

8 hours ago

May 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

May. 8, 2026, 12:39 PM EDT

This is the May 8, 2026, edition of “The Tea, Spilled by Morning Joe” newsletter. Subscribe hereto get it delivered straight to your inbox every Monday through Friday.

This Mother’s Day, I’ll be thinking about my mom, Mary Jo Scarboroughjust as I do every day.

I wrote about Mom in the Washington Post the week she died in 2019:

My first memory of Mom was her comforting presence at my side while a late night thunderstorm roared over our neighborhood in suburban Atlanta.

Mom softly sang “Where Is Love?” from the musical “Oliver!” and then told me how reciting the 23rd Psalm aloud would bring peace.

I may not have felt that blessed assurance as a 4-year-old, but my mother’s presence always brought peace.

Mom and I were emotionally inseparable for 55 years, and as she lay dying, I wanted her life to end the way my memories of her began. I quietly told her she would continue living on in the hearts of those she loved, and that more importantly, she would soon be reunited with Dad.

I knew Mom could hear my quiet words, just as I knew what she would whisper back if she could:

“Joey, be more careful with your words. If you keep talking down Republicans, you might just elect a Democrat.”

That was Mom. A steel magnolia. A Southern Baptist. A traditional Republican.

She would scarcely recognize her church or party seven years later, and would tell me to keep up the fight she helped me begin 32 years ago when I first ran for Congress.

“Judge yourself by your enemies, Joey,” she would say when things got tough. Then she’d say, “Don’t let them get the best of you. Keep fighting!”

Mom was raised an FDR Democrat and couldn’t stand extremists on any side.

She would especially be offended by the excessive cruelty of right-wing politicians who justify their hatred of others by twisted views of what they call “Christianity.”

Faith always eclipsed politics in our home. And when things got too crazy in Washington, Mom would quote an old gospel song: “This world is not my home, I’m just passing through.”

Well, Mom, I’m so grateful that I was part of your journey on this Earth. And on this Mother’s Day weekend, I thank you for continuing to be a part of my life for as long as I’m blessed to live.

I love you,

Joey

ON THE CALENDAR

In New York, the Macy’s Flower Show wraps its final weekend at Herald Square — store windows in full bloom, stained-glass sunsets, fabric-draped planters. A perfect Mother’s Day outing. Go before it’s gone.

In the nation’s capital, the Arab American Culture Festival returns to Eighth Street for its fourth year, with food from places such as Morocco and Palestine, dabke dance troupes, and live Arabic music.

In the Windy City, Broadway’s longest-running musical, “Chicago,” brings its Jazz Age murder trials and celebrity media circus home for five nights at The Auditorium.

Atlanta’s”https://www.sweetauburn.com/faq”> Sweet Auburn Springfest turns 40 this weekend — four decades of culture, music, and community in the neighborhood that gave the Civil Rights Movement its heartbeat.

You can’t spell “laugh” without L.A. and “ugh” — or so says Netflix Is a Joke. The stand-up comedy festival takes over Hollywood this weekend with 350 shows: Jenny Slate, John Mulaney, Jerry Seinfeldand more.

Myrtle Beach Bike Week descends on the Grand Strand for 10 days this weekend, bringing half a million riders and considerably more leather than the average beach vacation.

The NBA Conference Semifinals are on all weekend. Knicks vs. Sixers on Friday and Sunday. Pistons vs. Cavaliers on Saturday. Thunder vs. Lakers Saturday night on ABC.

In Buffalo, the Sabres host the Canadiens Sunday on ESPN, in their first playoff appearance in 14 years.

And the Red Sox are home at Fenway against Tampa Bay.

Now, let’s check some mail.

MAILBAG

Thank you again to all our readers who wrote in this week. As always, you’re welcome to write to us any time.

I just want to thank you for naming the “Ballroom” the Marie Antoinette Ballroom. It is so appropriate. If [Sen. Lindsey] Graham is successful in making us pay for it, what happens to the $300 million in donations? Does Trump pocket it?

— Katherine G., Moorhead, Minn.

If past is prologue, we can assume the president will try to pocket any money he has raised for his own use. The bigger question for me is why Republican leaders were so tone-deaf that they voluntarily proposed taking $1 billion from taxpayers to fund this grotesque vanity project.

With gas prices skyrocketing, healthcare bills becoming more expensive by the day, and groceries taking a huge bite out of working Americans’ paychecks, a Marie Antoinette-style ballroom is the last thing most Americans want or need.

If there is a reduction in Social Security and Medicare coming, why should I, as a retiree and disabled veteran, be happy for the U.S. government to allocate $400 million for an unneeded ballroom and funds for an arch that is not needed?

— Joe W., Warsaw, Wis.

Thank you for your service to America, Joe.

You can look at my answer above to your question as well. Also, add to that the record deficits and crippling debt that Trump Republicans are passing on to Americans every day.

This week, America’s debt surpassed our country’s gross domestic product for the only time since World War II. Golden ballrooms and gaudy arches are the last thing America needs right now.

Republicans are spending like drunken socialists and they need to stop now. The cost to the next generation will be devastating.

Do you think it’s too late to save America? The government gets more out of touch every day. Even if Democrats win in November, so much damage has already been done. Thanks.

— Curtis E., Charlotte, N.C.

Curtis, America has survived slavery, 48 recessions, a civil war, Jim Crow laws, two world wars, Japanese internment camps, 1960s riots, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11, two pandemics, and more crises than I can list here.

We will survive the challenges facing us now as well. We must remain vigilant and determined, and keep our heads about us. America is worth the struggle, especially when we have Madison’s Constitution and 250 years of history on our side.

If the “mutual destruction” argument worked to keep nuclear bombs off the list of Russian options for so many years, why doesn’t that argument work against the Iranians?

— Pat Q., Troy, Ohio

Because Iranian leaders who have ruled that country by terror since 1979 know they are fighting for their very lives.

For Donald Trumpthe stakes are midterm elections that matter little to him. Still, as gas approaches $5 a gallon nationally, the political pressure for Trump to cut and run is becoming too great. That’s why the president ignored repeated Iranian attacks on U.S. warships and called our countermeasures a “love tap.”

What a weak, dangerous message to send to our enemies. Let’s hope the president shows real strength soon. Our national security depends on it.

ONE MORE SHOT

Sean Levey (in red), riding Secret Santa, wins the Ascot Hospitality Handicap Stakes at Ascot Racecourse in Ascot, England.

That’s all the time we have, folks.

Thanks so much for your letters and for reading The Tea, Spilled by Morning Joe.

Have a great weekend.

Joe

CATCH UP ON MORNING JOE

The Dictatorship

The Iran war’s unexpected victims: American farmers

Published

8 hours ago

May 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

May. 8, 2026, 12:29 PM EDT

John Bartman knows the challenges of being a farmer. His family has been tilling Illinois soil since James K. Polk sat in the Oval Office, weathering droughts, trade disputes, market crashes and a Civil War in the process.

But now, with Donald Trump behind the Resolute Desk, fertilizer shipments have been halted through the Strait of Hormuz — a choke point for roughly one-third of the world’s fertilizer supply — and the resulting price spike is causing Bartman’s profits to disappear.

After years of turmoil for American farmers, “it’s just another straw that breaks the camel’s back,” Bartman said.

New data from the American Farm Bureau Federationan agricultural lobbying firm, warns that Bartman isn’t alone: Some 70% of American farmers may be unable to afford all the fertilizer their fields require.

It’s the latest in a series of economic headwinds that have slammed the U.S. agricultural industry over the past decade, causing farm bankruptcies to jump 46% from 2024 to 2025. The AFBF reported that this year 58% of its members said their financial situation had worsened since early 2025, while just 6% reported improvement.

Map: Carson Elm-Picard / MS NOW; Source: American Farm Bureau Federation

“Many farms were broadly in a situation of net negative margins, where they’re losing money, and this just compounds the problem,” Shawn Arita, the associate director of North Dakota State University’s Agricultural Risk Policy Center, said of the fertilizer shortage. “It was a very difficult situation before March 1, and now it’s certainly a lot more challenging.”

The shortage has caused the price of fertilizer jump from around $400 per ton in January to more than $600 per ton this week, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The impact of those high prices won’t be felt evenly across the U.S. — only 19% of Southern farmers preordered fertilizer before the price increased, compared with 30% in the Northeast, 31% in the West and 67% in the Midwest, according to the AFBF.

Chart: Carson Elm-Picard / MS NOW; Source: American Farm Bureau Federation

Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, have sought to downplay the severity of the inflation.

Rollins told Fox Business that “America has plenty of fertilizer” for its farmers, and Vance acknowledged the shortage but dismissed the conflict behind the inflation as “a little blip in the Middle East” during a speech on Tuesday. That same day, Rubio echoed Rollins’ claimsaying that it was only Iran’s fertilizer, not the United States’, that was stranded in the Persian Gulf.

While the U.S. is a major exporter of fertilizer globally, it still produces only about 9% of the global supply and remains a net importer of the good, according to the USDA, meaning that supply chain disruptions on the other side of the world still affect domestic market prices.

That could be why Rollins is now considering reviving a Biden-era initiative that pledged $900 million to funding the construction of new fertilizer plants in the U.S. That initiative, the Fertilizer Production Expansion Program, was eliminated during Trump’s second term “due to Presidential Executive Orders,” according to the USDA website.

Even if the initiative was resuscitated or the Strait of Hormuz reopened tomorrow, farmers would be paying inflated prices through 2027, even into 2028, Arita said. Rep. Don Bacon., R-Neb., a member of the House Agriculture Committee, told MS NOW that the Trump administration should “re-examine their tariff policies” to alleviate the strain on farmers, but did not comment on the effects of the Iran War.

Chart: Carson Elm-Picard / MS NOW; Source: American Farm Bureau Federation

Another committee member, Rep. April McClain Delaney, D-Md., said the high fertilizer prices are “reflective of a much larger crisis” caused by the Trump administration — one that has already hit her constituents.

“Farmers in my district are facing tough choices about whether they can afford to plant at all,” said Delaney, who represents Maryland’s largely rural 6th Congressional District. “This administration’s reckless actions and the flawed farm bill are failing our farmers.”

The House Agriculture Committee’s Republican leadership, Chairman Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania and Vice Chairman Austin Scott of Georgia, did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

Fertilizer inflation isn’t the only thing pushing up costs for farmers; diesel prices in the U.S. have jumped from about $3.80 at the start of the war to more than $5.60 as of May 4 , according to USDA data. That in turn has made it more expensive for all farmers to do business — even small growers like Leah Dannar-Garcia, an organic farmer in Wichita, Kansas, who doesn’t use synthetic fertilizer.

“Farms have been just hanging on with the soybean debacle last year,” Dannar-Garcia said, referring to the Trump administration’s $20 billion bailout of Argentinawhich spurred China to reduce its U.S. agricultural imports. “It’s had a devastating effect.”

As a soybean farmer, Bartman was particularly affected by that decision. Arita said the situation now is having an “asymmetric impact” on American agriculturalists, as farmers are paying more to grow and sell their crops, but aren’t necessarily able to raise prices on consumers to match. That in turn leads to lost profit and endangered livelihoods.

“They’re running the American farmer into the ground and out of business,” Bartman said of the Trump administration. “The only thing that is cheaper today than three years ago in the United States is a bushel of soybeans.”

Adam Hudacek is a desk associate for MS NOW covering national politics in Washington, D.C.