Mark Robinson admits ‘I lied’ about CNN story

By Em Steck, Andrew Kaczynski
3 hr ago
PUBLISHED Mar 20, 2026, 5:03 PM ET

Mark Robinson, then-North Carolina Lt. Gov., speaks at the Republican National Convention, July 15, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Former North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson admitted he lied about a bombshell CNN KFile investigation during the final months of his 2024 gubernatorial campaign, uncovering his extensive history of posting inflammatory and racist comments on a pornography website.

Robinson initially denied the report and sued CNN for $50 million that fall as he marched on with his gubernatorial campaign. Robinson eventually lost to current Democratic Gov. Josh Stein by more than 14 points.

Now, in a recent podcast interview, Robinson has acknowledged his deception and that he had an “obsession” with pornography and sex. He says he lied about the CNN report to protect those around him, including President Donald Trump, because it was “the most expedient thing to do.”

“I won’t say that I completely lied, some of the things about the whole story. Some of it — there’s some truth to it,” Robinson said on Thursday.

But “if I had to ignore the truth at that moment for their expediency, I felt like it was the right thing to do,” said Robinson.

“I certainly don’t want to be the person that costs the president of the United States the election. Didn’t want to cost anyone else their election. I guess there may be some people that feel like that I did,” he said.

CNN’s KFile reported in September 2024 that Robinson made a litany of inflammatory comments on a pornography website’s message board a decade earlier, in which he called himself a “black NAZI!” and expressed support for reinstating slavery. The comments were made under an alias, minisoldr, that CNN was able to link to Robinson by matching numerous biographical details and a shared email address.

Robinson strongly denied the story to CNN in an interview at the time. “This is not us. These are not our words. And this is not anything that is characteristic of me,” Robinson said.

Despite pressure from Republicans to drop out of the race, Robinson remained in it and his staff quickly fled the campaign.

After leaving office, Robinson dropped the defamation lawsuit against CNN and vowed to retire from politics.

During a 90-minute interview on “After the Call,” a podcast hosted by Florida-based pastor Josh Hall, Robinson delved into his childhood, his struggles with his obsession with sex and pornography, and copped to some of the reporting in CNN’s story.

“More than anything, you know, allegations that I watched pornography and was involved with people that watched pornography, and that that was absolutely true,” Robinson said.

Robinson said he was speaking out about his pornography “obsession” because he believes people like him, who struggled and came back from it, are the best messengers to help others struggling.

“The only shame in it is staying in it,” he said.

Robinson also suggested that some things his online alias, minisoldr, posted were falsely attributed to him. “I don’t deny the fact that at some point, I said enough salacious things where they could certainly make it seem so.”

It is unclear what comments Robinson is referring to.

He also maintained that had he followed his instincts and replaced his staff in the summer before the election, he could have survived the scandal.

“I should have changed campaign teams in the summer and took my campaign in a completely different direction. And if I had, I believe even with the CNN scandal, I believe I still would’ve won that race,” he said.

When asked by the host if he could go back to that time and make that decision or own up to the story, Robinson didn’t hesitate.

“No, I’d do the exact same thing,” he said, adding that the story was “never about me.”

“For the other, for the people who were doing it to me, it wasn’t about me. It was about a cause bunch bigger than that. And they knew that they could use me to destroy, the people around me, up to and including the president, they would do it. And so I’d make the exact same decision.”

特朗普考虑逐步降级伊朗军事行动 | 联合早报

发布/2026年3月21日 07:04

特朗普3月20日在社媒贴文说：“霍尔木兹海峡的守卫和巡逻将由需要使用这条海峡的国家负责——美国不需要！” （路透社）

美国总统特朗普正在考虑“逐步降级”对伊朗的军事行动，称美国已接近实现目标。

彭博社报道，这场搅乱全球金融市场和整个中东地区的战事即将进入第四周。特朗普星期五（3月20日）在社交媒体发文说：“我们距离实现目标越来越近了，正在考虑逐步降级针对伊朗的军事行动。”

特朗普称，他的目标是“彻底削弱”伊朗的导弹能力，“摧毁”伊朗的国防工业基础，消灭它的海军和空军，绝不允许德黑兰发展核武器，以及保护中东盟友。

他还谈到霍尔木兹海峡，要把保护这条关键航道的工作交给其他国家。

特朗普说：“霍尔木兹海峡的守卫和巡逻将由需要使用这条海峡的国家负责——美国不需要！”

他说：“如果它们要求，我们会在它们巡逻霍尔木兹海峡的行动中提供协助。但一旦伊朗的威胁消除，就没必要这么做了。重要的是，对它们来说，这将是一个简单的军事行动。”

在特朗普发表这番言论之前，他还说拒绝宣布停止对伊朗的敌对行动，称尽管盟友不愿帮忙，他仍确信霍尔木兹海峡会“自行”重新开放。

另据英国广播公司（BBC）报道，在特朗普说考虑逐步降级对伊朗的军事行动前，英国宣布批准美国使用军事基地对伊朗位于霍尔木兹海峡的目标进行空袭。特朗普批评英国的这一决定“为时已晚”。

Hegseth has repeatedly said the US is upping the frequency of its Iran strikes. The data tells a different story

Published Mar 20, 2026, 4:49 PM ET | CNN Politics

By

[Haley Britzky]

Updated 37 min ago

Updated Mar 20, 2026, 7:24 PM ET

Pete Hegseth The Middle East Federal agencies US military

[See all topics]

Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

Link Copied!

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth provides updates on the continued military operations against Iran during a press briefing at the Pentagon on March 19, 2026.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

While Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has repeatedly stated that the number and intensity of the strikes the US is carrying out against Iran is only increasing, data provided by the US military shows a pace of operations that has ebbed and flowed over the last three weeks.

As Hegseth has gone to the podium alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine in a series of press conferences, he has repeatedly asserted that the coming day would bring the most US strikes on Iran yet.

Starting on March 4, his second briefing on the war which began on February 28, Hegseth said “more and larger waves” of strikes were coming, and that the Defense Department was “accelerating, not decelerating.”

“Iran’s capabilities are evaporating by the hour,” he said. On March 10, he said that “today will be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran.” And on Thursday, Hegseth said, “today will be the largest strike package yet, just like yesterday was.”

But data released publicly by US Central Command has not shown that the number of strikes has increased daily the way Hegseth has indicated, which could partly be due to the need to adjust the frequency of flights as aircraft and ships receive maintenance while operations continue, or because the military started with a set target list and is now working to identify and confirm new targets.

US Central Command referred questions from CNN to the Defense Department. A department official told CNN, “As the Secretary and Admiral (Brad) Cooper have said, the Department of War continues to intensify our operations against military targets in Iran.”

The discrepancy speaks to a disconnect between how the war is being messaged and the reality on the ground. During briefings to the press, Hegseth has said the US is “winning decisively”; that Iran’s air defenses have been “flattened” and industrial base “overwhelmingly destroyed”; and that Iran has “no air defenses…no air force….no Navy.”

Undoubtedly, Iran’s military capabilities have been degraded significantly and Israel has killed senior Iranian leaders including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s National Security Council.

However, the US has struggled to secure safe passage for commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed due to threats from Iran. Tehran has continued retaliating against neighboring nations and US forces throughout the region. On Thursday, a US F-35 fighter jet made an emergency landing after sources said it was believed to have been struck by Iran during a combat mission, raising questions about Hegseth’s claim on March 4 that by the end of that week, the US and Israel would have “complete control of Iranian skies.”

And the public strike numbers released by US Central Command reveal that the waves of attacks since Hegseth’s first briefing have not been increasing steadily, despite Hegseth’s rhetoric indicating otherwise.

It’s not particularly surprising that the number of strikes would increase or decrease over time, Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Defense and Security Department told CNN. It could reflect that the operation is moving into a sustained air campaign, meaning the military will need to provide maintenance to aircraft and ships as the operations continue, whereas at the beginning, “you can just surge,” Cancian said. The USS Gerald R. Ford, for example, is moving away from participating in the operations briefly to conduct repairs in Souda Bay, Crete, after a fire broke out in the ship’s laundry area.

But the pace of operations could decrease and increase as the military works to find new targets, Cancian said. The military “started the campaign with a CENTCOM target list, which has been maintained for decades,” he said. Nearly three weeks and more than 7,000 targets later, they have likely worked through much of that list and are expanding it as more intelligence comes in.

“I think for both reasons, that rate of attacks has sort of moderated to a level that is on average, below 1,000 a day,” Cancian said.

Strike data has not been released daily showing the increase in targets hit; CENTCOM has instead released data every few days showing an increase in targets struck. Using that data, the average number of strikes per day in the interim shows the number of strikes has increased and decreased over time — though the peak was reached on the first day of the operation when CENTCOM said more than 1,000 targets were hit.

Numbers released by CENTCOM on March 9 and March 12, for example, show that targets struck increased by roughly 1,000, amount to an average of 333 strikes per day. But on March 10, in the middle of that period, Hegseth said, “today will be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran, the most fighters, the most bombers, the most strikes, intelligence more refined and better than ever.”

On March 13, Hegseth said that “today will be yet again the highest volume of strikes that America has put over the skies of Iran and Tehran.” But from March 12 to March 16, the US averaged roughly 250 strikes per day according to an average of CENTCOM’s data, as the targets struck increased from approximately 6,000 on March 12 to more than 7,000 on March 16.

There have been moments of uptick in the average number of strikes: On March 2, roughly 250 targets were struck, which increased to 450 targets struck on March 3. And between March 6 and March 9, there was an average of 666 targets hit per day, up from an average of 433 targets struck between March 3 and March 6.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Pete Hegseth The Middle East Federal agencies US military

[See all topics]

Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

Link Copied!

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer says a string of recent terrorist attacks by naturalized citizens exposes serious flaws in U.S. immigration law, arguing it’s “more imperative now than ever” to pass the Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation (SCAM) Act to allow the government to remove “America-hating terrorists” from the country.

First introduced by Emmer in January, the SCAM Act would expand the U.S. government’s ability to revoke citizenship from naturalized citizens convicted of being involved in terrorism, fraud or espionage. The Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.

“This has to be dealt with,” Emmer, a Minnesota Republican, told Fox News Digital.

“If you’re going to take advantage of the generosity of Americans, or you are going to associate with known terrorist organizations or commit aggravated felonies or terrorist attacks, even attempted, it doesn’t matter; no more playing games,” said Emmer. “You should be denaturalized and shipped back to wherever the heck you came from.”

[HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY REPUBLICAN URGES US MUSLIM LEADERSHIP TO ‘ISOLATE EXTREMISTS’ AFTER STRING OF ATTACKS]

He lamented that under current law, “the standards to denaturalize someone are just too high,” but noted, “we have a solution to fix it.”

The bill, which on the House side currently sits in the House Judiciary Committee, allows prosecutors to use crimes committed after naturalization as evidence that an individual falsely claimed good moral character during the citizenship process, effectively arguing their citizenship was invalid from the start.

The SCAM Act already has nearly 50 House co-sponsors, according to Emmer. Once it is scheduled for a vote, he believes it will not have an issue passing and may even receive some bipartisan support from Democrats recognizing the gravity of the issue.

“It’s really simple,” he said. “The message is, terrorists do not belong on U.S. Soil, naturalized or not.”

[STRING OF ATTACKS CONNECTED TO NATURALIZED CITIZENS RAISES NATIONAL SECURITY QUESTIONS]

At the start of March, Senegalese-born naturalized citizen Ndiaga Diagne was killed by police after allegedly killing three people and injuring more than a dozen in a shooting in Austin, police said.

Not long after, Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi, the children of naturalized citizens from Turkey and Afghanistan, allegedly pledged support to ISIS and attempted to bomb an anti-Islam demonstration outside the mayor’s mansion in New York City, according to police. They have been charged with attempting to provide material support to ISIS, attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, and multiple explosives-related offenses including transporting, receiving and possessing destructive devices.

Then, on March 12, Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Lebanon, allegedly attempted to ram his vehicle into a Michigan synagogue filled with children and teachers, according to authorities.

The same day at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leone, allegedly opened fire on a class of Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) students, killing Lt. Col. Brandon Shah, according to police. He also was killed at the scene.

“Clearly something is broken in our immigration system,” said Emmer, adding that terrorists “keep getting into our country and they keep being allowed to stay here at the expense of Americans and American lives.”

“We can’t go on like this,” he went on, emphasizing, “It is more imperative now than ever that we get this thing done.”

[EX-JIHADIST WARNS OF PREDATORY RECRUITMENT AFTER ISIS-INSPIRED BOMB PLOT IN NEW YORK CITY]

Despite this, Emmer has faced some opposition in Minnesota for his hardline stance.

Local outlet MPRNews reported a community activist leader in his district named Abdikadir Bashir, who is executive director of the nonprofit Center for African Immigrants and Refugees Organization, accusing Emmer of “trying to erase us politically.”

“The moment citizenship becomes conditional on whether a politician finds us convenient, none of us is safe,” Bashir said, according to the outlet. “Today, it might be the Somali Americans. Tomorrow, it could be another ethnic group.”

Though he declined to hazard a guess on a timeline of when the bill might be passed, he said that “as soon as possible would be my plea.”

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP]

“We have an immigration system that is not requiring these people to actually declare their allegiance to the United States of America and their willingness to be Americans,” he said.

“We want anybody and everybody from anywhere who comes here to chase their American dream and become an American … we want you,” he concluded. “If you come here and you don’t intend to become an American, you intend to change America or destroy America, you need to get the heck out.”

Peter Pinedo is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.

美官员：白宫正在权衡夺取伊朗哈尔克岛计划

2026-03-20T23:42:36.000Z / 联合早报

知情者称，面积约为美国曼哈顿三分之一的哈尔克岛可以被迅速占领，这将成为美国迫使德黑兰解除霍尔木兹海峡封锁的关键筹码。 （法新社）

美国官员透露，白宫正向中东派遣数百名海军陆战队员，同时在权衡一项夺取伊朗石油出口枢纽哈尔克岛的计划。即便只是在伊朗部署少量的地面部队，对特朗普而言仍隐藏巨大风险。

彭博社报道，知情人士称，目前在特朗普的顾问中，支持采取有限地面行动的势头正在增强。面积约为美国曼哈顿三分之一的哈尔克岛可以被迅速占领，这将成为美国迫使德黑兰解除霍尔木兹海峡封锁的关键筹码。

曾为五角大楼和中央情报局提供咨询的鲁金斯学会智库的国防战略专家奥汉隆说：“诚然，此举具有战术优势，但也可能代价高昂，而且没有明确的战略目标。”

他指出，在中东部署一支海军陆战队远征部队将面临巨大的伤亡风险，而且缺乏明确的下一步，说明美国将如何真正加速伊朗的政权更迭，或促使伊朗愿意通过谈判结束敌对行动。

特朗普本周早些时候说，他不会在任何地方部署军队。但他已下令海军陆战队前往中东，拥有超过2000名士兵的日本第31海军陆战队远征部队也参与其列。

任何试图夺取并控制伊朗能源设施的行动，都将使美军面临更大的危险，并将使美以伊战争的规模和成本超出空袭行动的范畴。迄今为止，这场战争已造成13名美军士兵阵亡。

同样引人关注的还有美军登陆伊朗领土的象征意义，以及特朗普可能发动一场属于他自己的战争。特朗普之所以能在美国政坛迅速崛起，部分原因是他曾猛烈批评在他之前的美国总统发动无休止的海外战争。

在美国正向中东派遣数百名海军陆战队员，拟夺取伊朗哈尔克岛的消息传出之时，特朗普在社媒贴文说，他正在考虑“逐步降级”对伊朗的军事行动，称美国已接近实现目标。

他还谈到霍尔木兹海峡，说要把保护这条关键航道的工作交给其他国家。

Judge strikes down restrictive Pentagon press policy, finding it violates First Amendment

March 20, 2026 / 7:31 PM EDT / CBS News

A federal judge has struck down some of the Defense Department’s strict controls on how journalists with access to the Pentagon are allowed to report — ending a policy that caused many news outlets to leave the Pentagon.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman sided with the New York Times and a reporter at the newspaper, Julian E. Barnes, who sued in December, arguing the new Pentagon policy violated the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and due process provision of the Constitution.

The Pentagon rolled out its new press access policy last fall, requiring credentialed reporters to sign onto a host of restrictions in order to maintain daily access to the building.

Many media organizations — including CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, CNN and Fox News — declined to sign the new rules and stopped working out of the Pentagon on a day-to-day basis. The Pentagon’s in-house press corps is now mostly made up of conservative media outlets that agreed to sign.

Friedman’s ruling halts some of the restrictions that news outlets objected the most strenuously to, including one section that suggested reporters who “solicit” classified or sensitive information from military personnel could be deemed a security risk and barred from the building. He also struck down a section that referred to Pentagon access as a “privilege” rather than a “right.”

Some sections were left in place, including restrictions on where reporters are allowed to go in the Pentagon without an escort.

In a social media post, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said, “We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal.” The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a statement provided to CBS News Friday evening, the Pentagon Press Association said that it “celebrates the decision by a federal judge today that the Pentagon’s press credentialling policy violated the U.S. Constitution,” and called for the “immediate reinstatement of the credentials of all PPA members.”

The Pentagon has argued that it isn’t forcing reporters to clear their stories with the military, and is instead trying to protect national security by preventing leaks of highly sensitive information. The military also says it has tried to negotiate with news outlets. But many reporters who cover the military, and the Pentagon Press Association, argued the policy could effectively restrict journalists from interacting with sources without the government’s permission.

Friedman ordered the Pentagon to reinstate Barnes and several other Times reporters’ press passes, and vacated key parts of the policy. It’s not clear what the impact will be on other news outlets.

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,” he said.

Friedman found that the restrictions on “soliciting” information were so vague that it wasn’t clear what kinds of conduct did and didn’t violate the rules, so “one could easily predict that journalists would opt not to ask any questions rather than risk losing their [credential].”

He also argued that the policy violates the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination, writing that it seeks to chill critical speech and “weed out disfavored journalists.”

The Pentagon has argued that its new policy isn’t aimed at punishing certain outlets or discriminating against views that it disagrees with, pointing to the military’s efforts to negotiate with news outlets.

Friedman pointed to instances of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other top Pentagon officials criticizing news outlets in harsh terms. He said the evidence “tells the story of a Department whose leadership has been and continues to be openly hostile to the ‘mainstream media’ whose reporting it views as unfavorable,” and warmer to more supportive outlets.

And he pointed to the fact that right-wing influencer Laura Loomer was allowed access to the Pentagon despite setting up a “tip line,” even though a similar request for tips by The Washington Post was deemed inappropriate.

That issue was raised during a court hearing earlier this month, when Friedman grilled government lawyers on why Loomer’s tip line was permitted and the Post’s wasn’t

“Is the Washington Post tip line criminal solicitation?” Friedman asked.

“I don’t think so, your honor,” Justice Department attorney Michael Bruns responded.

“You’re not clear whether the Washington Post tip line constitutes criminal solicitation?” Friedman asked again.

“No, your honor,” Bruns said.

“So, if you’re not clear, how can they be clear?” Friedman retorted.

Bruns then told Friedman that The Washington Post tip line was problematic because it asked for information from military members, while Loomer’s is more general in nature.

In another tense exchange during that hearing, Friedman said he has lived through many military and national security conflicts, from the Vietnam War to the Sept. 11 attacks, and noted that through those events, the press played a vital role in helping the American public understand what its government was doing.

Regarding the Vietnam War, he said that “the public, I think it’s fair to say, was lied to about a lot of things,” and added, “A lot of things need to be held tightly and securely, but openness and transparency allow members of the public to know what their government is doing.”

By

[Devan Cole]

Updated 1 hr 53 min ago

Updated Mar 20, 2026, 6:07 PM ET

PUBLISHED Mar 20, 2026, 5:17 PM ET

Media Federal agencies US military Human rights

[See all topics]

Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

Link Copied!

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth provides updates on the continued military operations on Iran 2during a press briefing on the Iran war at the Pentagon on March 19, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

A federal judge on Friday voided various parts of a restrictive press policy rolled out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last year, ruling that they trampled on the constitutional rights of reporters who seek to cover the US military from within its sprawling headquarters.

The ruling from senior US District Judge Paul Friedman is a major blow to Hegseth’s effort to exert greater control over press coverage and comes as reporting on the Defense Department has ramped up amid the war in Iran and the US operation earlier this year in Venezuela.

It voids several provisions of the new policy that enabled the Pentagon to suspend or revoke credentials based on reporting, but leaves in place other parts of the policy that had been in effect in earlier iterations and were not subject to the legal challenge.

Ad Feedback

“A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription,” Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a scathing opinion.

“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,” the judge added. “That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”

The New York Times challenged the policy late last year, arguing it violates its First Amendment and due process rights.

The parts of the policy Friedman struck down required beat reporters to sign a pledge not to obtain or use unauthorized material. Scores of news organizations, including the Times and CNN, declined to agree, resulting in reporters being denied press badges that give them access to the Pentagon.

[Related article US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One on a flight back to Washington D.C., on Sunday night. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters Trump and his officials pressure the news media in unison as Iran war scrutiny intensifies 6 min read]

Friedman ordered officials to reinstate the press badges of seven national security reporters at the Times who lost access to the Pentagon last year.

“The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected,” Friedman wrote. “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.”

CNN has reached out to the Defense Department and New York Times for comment.

“The district court’s decision 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,” First Amendment attorney Theodore Boutrous, who is representing The Times in the suit, told CNN.

Another ruling against Hegseth on First Amendment

Friedman became the second judge in recent weeks to conclude that Hegseth was playing fast and loose with First Amendment protections.

Last month, another judge who sits in the same courthouse said the secretary had run afoul of the free speech rights of a Democratic senator when he attempted to retaliate against the lawmaker over his urging of US service members to refuse illegal orders.

Friedman on Friday pointed to various statements by Hegseth and his aides that he said shows the department has been “openly hostile” to reporting from mainstream news organizations whose stories “it views as unfavorable, but receptive to outlets that have expressed ‘support for the Trump administration in the past.’”

“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 wrote. “That is viewpoint discrimination, full stop.”

Friedman also agreed with the Times that the policy ran afoul of its due process rights because it was vague and therefore could be unintentionally violated by reporters seeking to comply with it.

“A primary way in which journalists obtain information is by asking questions,” he wrote. “Under the policy’s terms, then, essential journalistic practices that the plaintiffs and others engage in every day – such as asking questions of department employees – could trigger a determination by the department that a journalist poses a security or safety risk.”

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “It’s unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon’s ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash.”

“Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting ‘authorized’ narratives,” Stern said in a statement.

This story has been updated with additional details.

CNN’s Brian Stelter contributed to this report.

Media Federal agencies US military Human rights

[See all topics]

Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads

Link Copied!

Ad Feedback

消息：五角大楼为可能在伊朗部署地面部队做好准备

发布时间：2026年3月21日 07:59 / 来源：联合早报

消息人士称，美国总统特朗普一直在考虑是否在伊朗部署地面部队，美国高级军事指挥官已提交旨在为此类方案做准备的具体请求。 （路透社）

有消息指，美国五角大楼官员已为可能在伊朗部署美军地面部队做好了准备。

美国哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）星期五（3月20日）引述消息人士的话说，美国总统特朗普一直在考虑是否在伊朗部署地面部队，美国高级军事指挥官已提交旨在为此类方案做准备的具体请求。

美国军方还召开会议，为特朗普决定派遣美军地面部队参战制定应对预案，包括如何处理可能抓获的伊朗士兵等细节。

另据彭博社报道，知情人士透露，目前在特朗普的顾问中，支持采取有限地面行动的势头正在增强。面积约为美国曼哈顿三分之一的哈尔克岛可以被迅速占领，这将成为美国迫使德黑兰解除霍尔木兹海峡封锁的关键筹码。

白宫新闻秘书莱维特当天在一份声明中说：“五角大楼的职责是为三军统帅提供最大选择权，这并不意味着总统已经做出决定，正如总统昨天在椭圆形办公室所说，他目前不打算向任何地方派遣地面部队。”

特朗普20日在社媒贴文说，“我们距离实现目标越来越近了，正在考虑逐步降级针对伊朗的军事行动。”19日，他对媒体表明不会向伊朗派兵，但很快补充道：“如果我派兵，我肯定不会告诉你们。”

Trump administration temporarily lifts sanctions on Iranian oil at sea amid soaring prices

Updated on: March 20, 2026 / 7:34 PM EDT / CBS News

The U.S. Treasury has authorized the purchase of Iranian oil that’s already at sea, exempting buyers from the tight sanctions that have restricted the country’s oil industry for years — a move aimed at stemming soaring prices amid the U.S.’s war with Iran.

[close dialog]

Advertisement

[close dialog]

The sanctions license allows oil from Iran to be purchased if it was loaded onto a ship by 12:01 a.m. ET on Friday. The authorization lasts until April 19.

The Trump administration had telegraphed the move this week. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Thursday morning Fox Business interview that

“American Nightmare” survivor Denise Huskins’ shocking new discovery exposes victim privacy loophole in California law

March 20, 2026 / 1:53 PM EDT / CBS News California

The failure to protect explicit case evidence in “American Nightmare” survivor Denise Huskins’ kidnapping and sexual assault case is driving reform at the California State Capitol. New developments in her case exposed a little-known gap in state law that could expose videos of sexual assault victims.

Huskins and her husband, Aaron Quinn, are preparing to testify on behalf of a victims’ privacy bill after discovering her kidnapper and his wife had been given copies of explicit case evidence during his trial. A decade after his conviction, his now ex-wife still had the evidence in her home.

Huskins’ kidnapping was the subject of one of Netflix’s most-watched true-crime docuseries, “American Nightmare.” In March 2015, Matthew Muller invaded Quinn’s Vallejo home, blindfolding and drugging the couple. He kidnapped, raped, and held Huskins for ransom in South Lake Tahoe for two days before releasing her.

Law enforcement officials then falsely accused Huskins of orchestrating her own kidnapping, a claim widely compared to the plot of the movie “Gone Girl.” Months later, after authorities arrested Muller for a separate attempted kidnapping, he pleaded guilty to kidnapping and sexually assaulting Huskins.

Exposing a legal loophole

Huskins and Quinn worked with law enforcement over the past year to help reopen and solve cold case crimes tied to her attacker.

It was during those investigations and subsequent confessions from Muller that they discovered a failure to protect explicit evidence in her case and potentially others.

According to investigators, and a decade after Muller’s conviction, his now ex-wife confirmed that they had been given explicit evidence of the sexual assaults as part of the legal discovery process — videotaped recordings of the assaults investigators say Muller made as he committed the crimes. Muller represented himself for a period, and his ex-wife said she was working as his legal assistant.

CBS News California has reached out to the district attorney, the public defender, and the court to understand how Muller ended up with the explicit evidence and why his ex-wife wasn’t asked to return it for more than a decade.

The Solano County District Attorney’s Office pointed to a protective order governing the videos, signed by the Deputy District Attorney who prosecuted the case and Muller’s defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Stephanie Grogan-Jones, who is now a Solano County judge.

The order specified, “While the defendant may review the materials in the presence of counsel, under no circumstances shall the defendant be given copies of any part of these materials to keep, nor shall the defendant be left alone with these materials.”

The protective order also required that the materials, and any copies, “be returned to the Court for destruction within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of this case.”

Investigators now say that did not happen.

“Part of videoing it is his ability to continue to exploit and re-victimize me over and over again every time he viewed it,” Huskins explained.

The discovery was deeply disturbing for Huskins, not just because of the failure to protect the evidence in her case, but because it exposed a breakdown in state law and in how court-ordered safeguards were carried out.

“It’s unnecessary and, quite frankly, it feels cruel,” Huskins said.

CBS News California is still awaiting responses from prosecutors, the public defender who handled the case — now a Solano County judge — and the Solano County court about who was responsible for safeguarding the evidence, how the protective order was implemented, and whether it was ultimately enforced.

A gap in California law

California law already requires courts to seal sexually explicit evidence involving children, but protections are far less clear for adult victims.

“There isn’t a law,” said Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney Sonja Satchell, who has a long career prosecuting sex crimes. “We are governed by best practices… and those practices can vary from county to county. There is no uniformity.”

Even in cases where protective orders are issued, there is no consistent system to track or verify compliance once a case ends.

That means decisions about how to handle explicit evidence involving adult victims are often left to individual prosecutors or the courts without consistent statewide standards.

To learn that there wasn’t more care, more guidelines and restrictions, was just another insult to injury,” Huskins said. “In this digital age, it just seems like common sense to make sure that any kind of video footage or any kind discovery that included sensitive material around sexual assault, that there would be stricter protocols and guidelines around it.”

The push for reform: SB 1056

Huskins and Quinn are now working with lawmakers to set those guidelines.

They are backing Senate Bill 1056, authored by Senator Tim Grayson, which would require courts to issue protective orders governing sexually explicit evidence involving victims of any age, and limit how that material can be copied, shared, or accessed.

Grayson’s bill would shift responsibility from prosecutors to the courts, creating a uniform standard across California. It would also prohibit attorneys from providing copies of that material directly to defendants or others without court approval and a showing of good cause, while still allowing access for legal preparation under strict court-ordered conditions.

“If survivors don’t feel like they’re going to be safe and protected, they are not going to come forward,” Huskins said.

The bill comes as new scrutiny is placed not just on the lack of statewide standards, but on whether existing court orders are being followed and enforced.

From survivor to advocate

The effort represents the next chapter in Huskins and Quinn’s journey, which began with trauma and is evolving into advocacy.

They are expected to testify before the California State Senate Public Safety Committee as lawmakers consider the bill on March 24.

CBS News California accompanied them to the State Capitol, where they had the chance to visit the hearing room that they’ll be testifying in. Huskins described the moment as both surreal and meaningful.

“It’s healing to know that we have a voice… and we can use it,” she said.

A broader impact

The couple says the goal is simple: ensure no other survivor has to worry that evidence of their assault could resurface years later, outside their control, re-victimizing them as it did Huskins.

“We’ve met so many people who are already doing amazing work,” Huskins said.” “So if we could just help in any way, it’s a huge honor and it’s worth every second .”

Their case, once dismissed as a hoax, is now exposing gaps in both the law and the system meant to enforce it — and driving changes that could better protect victims moving forward.