Expert rejoices as judge whacks Hegseth's campaign of 'subterfuge'

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has been on a crusade of "subterfuge" against the Constitution by instituting stealth "viewpoint discrimination" at every turn, former prosecutor Harry Litman wrote for his "Talking Feds" Substack on Monday — and just got curb-stomped for it by an irate federal judge.

Hegseth, a former Fox News personality who styles himself "Secretary of War" due to a controversial and non congressionally approved department name change by President Donald Trump, has repeatedly been caught abusing his powers, including threats to court-martial a U.S. senator who reminded troops they have a duty to refuse illegal orders.

The current drama centers on the Pentagon's new press credentialing policy, a draconian shift that caused every mainline media outlet and even a number of right-leaning ones to hand in their press passes and let Hegseth instead staff the press corps with MAGA sycophant bloggers. U.S. Senior District Judge Paul Friedman voided the policy last Friday, in a scathing opinion calling out Hegseth's policy for what it is.

"During his tenure as Secretary of Defense ... Hegseth has shown a sustained fixation on coverage he views as hostile," wrote Litman. "He complained bitterly about reporting on his confirmation that understandably focused on his threadbare qualifications and closet full of skeletons, including allegations of alcoholism, poor management, and sexual assault. The Pentagon’s posture hardened from there. At one point, photographers were removed from the Pentagon’s Iran War briefings after publishing images Hegseth disliked. The new credentialing policy was not an isolated move. It was part of a larger effort to use control over access to shape the story."

The policy, noted Litman, prohibited "solicitation" of "unauthorized disclosures," an act which "swept broadly enough to cover the core acts of journalism: asking questions, cultivating sources, and receiving information. Under the policy, a reporter could lose credentials not only for publishing information the Department had not approved, but for asking questions that led to its disclosure."

"Friedman himself had warned months earlier that repeated departures from basic norms of candor might forfeit the usual presumption of regularity courts extend to executive action. His opinion here is the payout on that earlier warning," wrote Litman. The judge, he continued, said the policy was too vague to be constitutionally permissible, and also that it amounted to viewpoint discrimination, because it was calculated to drive out mainstream press outlets and allow far-right bloggers to get press passes.

"Thus, the Pentagon okayed the tip line from Trump favorite Laura Loomer. But it refused a similar request from the Washington Post for outreach to DoD personnel. Same conduct; opposite result. The distinction was editorial alignment," wrote Litman. Even more damningly, he continued, "Friedman detailed the Department’s treatment of James O’Keefe, the conservative activist and founder of Project Veritas. O’Keefe received credentials despite having pleaded guilty to federal charges for entering federal property under false pretenses, conduct that falls squarely within the kinds of offenses the policy itself lists as grounds for denial."

The bottom line, he concluded, is that "It’s just common sense to take this administration’s assertions with a jaundiced eye. The federal courts, institutionally inclined to comity towards other branches, have lagged behind. But opinions like Friedman’s show them beginning to confront head-on the administration’s lying ways."