News
‘What’s going on?’: US judge calls aspects of new Pentagon press policy ‘weird’
Federal judge Paul Friedman seemed skeptical of the new press policy implemented by the Pentagon last week, calling aspects of it “weird” and Kafkaesque.
Friedman struck down key aspects of the previously implemented Pentagon media policy on 20 March, but at the latest hearing on Monday stopped short of ruling on a motion filed by the New York Times to force compliance of his decision.
Friedman was particularly skeptical about the ways in which press space was being provided to the seven New York Times reporters, whom he previously ruled should have their press access badges returned.
The Times, along with dozens of other news organizations, chose not to sign the new restrictions implemented by the Pentagon last fall and returned their long-held passes. The Times sued the Trump administration over the policy.
Julian Barnes, one of the Times reporters at issue, had attested that he was told that library space was available for the journalists to use while the Pentagon built out a new space on the Pentagon grounds for all credentialed media workers to use. But, he wrote in a statement, “the Pentagon Press Office staff indicated that they were unsure how we could access the library.”
“How weird is that?” Friedman, a district court judge, said on Monday. “Is it catch-22? Is it Kafka? What’s going on? That hardly seems consistent with right of access and the first amendment.” (Lawyers for the government responded that a decision had been made to allow the Times reporters to use a Pentagon shuttle to reach the library.)
Theodore J Boutrous Jr, a lawyer representing the Times, charged that the administration was “brazenly, blatantly flouting the court’s order” by announcing the closure of the press space known as Correspondents’ Corridor and by creating a new policy that requires journalists to be escorted around the building by a Pentagon staff member.
“Nothing will stop them,” he said. “Not a court order. Not an injunction.”
With the new requirement requiring escorts, Boutrous said Pentagon press credentials were now “worthless”.
“They’ve made the press credentials that we fought so hard to get back a meaningless piece of plastic,” he added. “They’ve violated the first amendment.”
As he had during a previous hearing, the judge expressed alarm that journalists could be penalized for asking questions of military officials, which he said they had the right to do – and that a Pentagon employee could simply decline to answer.
The new policy includes language stating that, by offering anonymity to a Pentagon employee, a journalist would be demonstrating knowledge that the employee was not authorized to disclose the information, thereby putting their press pass at risk.
But the judge seemed skeptical that a source using anonymity suggested that they were leaking classified information. “Aren’t there lots of reasons why people in government ask for anonymity?” he asked. “People ask for anonymity because they’re afraid of retribution” or “because their bosses won’t like it”, he said, suggesting that it could create a “chilling effect”.
Timothy Parlatore, who played a central role in designing the revamped press restrictions announced last fall, told reporters after the hearing that the new restrictions didn’t bar questions – but prevented journalists from trying to force reluctant staffers to reveal information after they had indicated they would not do so.
“What we’re talking about here are when they go to department employees and they say: ‘Hey, can you tell me about this?’ And the employee’s like: ‘No, I don’t want to talk to you.’ And they say: ‘Well, what if I give you anonymity? Will you talk to me then?’ Then they’re trying to get somebody to talk who’s already said that they don’t want to talk,” he said.
He also said that the Pentagon did not plan to go through articles and try to determine who the anonymous sources were – but would act if an employee conveyed that a reporter had asked them to disclose classified information, something that would be barred under the language of the new policy. “Anytime a person with a security clearance has somebody that approaches them to try to solicit that information, they’re supposed to report that,” he said.
Parlatore, asked about the judge’s invocation of the Joseph Heller novel Catch-22, said it was based on “creative misinterpretations by the New York Times lawyers” and “a fictional interpretation of the policy”.
The goal of the press policy, Parlatore said, was to reduce leaks of classified information. “There was a significant amount of leaks of classified information and that was something that the department has an obligation, a statutory obligation, to try to stop,” he said.
Parlatore claimed that the policy had already paid dividends in a decrease of leaked classified information.
At the end of the hearing, the judge asked a lawyer for the government, Sarah Welch, to submit – by the end of the day – a brief explaining the case law basis for creating a new press policy in response to a court order striking down the crux of the previous policy.
Amid the US war on Iran, “time is of the essence”, Boutrous, the Times lawyer, said. “There is a war going on and the American people are being shut down from information.”
News
Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
News
Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.
U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.
News
Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation. My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry.
Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components. As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country. We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.
It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.
Sec. 2. Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:
(i) expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;
(ii) establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and
(iii) facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.
(e) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.
(f) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.
Sec. 3. Secure Frontier Model Deployment. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:
(a) develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate. Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.
(b) design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:
(i) engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;
(ii) provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and
(iii) collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.
Sec. 4. Protection Against Criminal Actors. The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime. This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 2, 2026.
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 minutes agoCalifornia primary election results: governor and L.A. mayor races
-
Detroit, MI22 minutes agoAnother bribery scandal hits Detroit. It involves the People Mover
-
San Francisco, CA32 minutes agoWhat’s Worth More Than Cash in San Francisco Real Estate? Anthropic Stock
-
Dallas, TX37 minutes agoDallas weighs $500 million‑plus repair plans as City Hall’s future comes up for debate
-
Miami, FL44 minutes agoMiami biotech executive was followed into his condo by man who allegedly threw him from 25th floor
-
Boston, MA47 minutes ago
What a World Cup ‘fan zone’ is and what Boston fans can expect in 2026
-
Denver, CO52 minutes agoDefensive lineman Jordan Miller has a tough battle to make the Broncos’ final 53-man roster
-
Seattle, WA59 minutes agoVIDEO: Mayor Wilson proposes renewing, expanding Seattle Transit Measure by doubling the sales-tax percentage that funds it.