更新于：2026年3月6日 / 美国东部时间下午5:41 / CBS新闻
周五，一名联邦法官就五角大楼一项新政策对政府提出尖锐质疑。该政策严格限制记者在大楼内继续工作的报道权限。
在一场紧张的庭审交流中，美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法官保罗·L·弗里德曼表示，他经历过从越南战争到”9·11″袭击的多次军事和国家安全冲突，并指出媒体在所有这些事件中都发挥了至关重要的作用，帮助美国公众了解政府的所作所为。
谈及越南战争时，他表示：”可以说，公众在很多事情上都被误导了”，并补充道：”很多事情需要严格保密，但开放和透明能让公众了解政府的所作所为。”
去年年底，《纽约时报》起诉五角大楼，此前五角大楼要求所有在大楼内工作的持证记者签署一系列针对新闻采集活动的严格限制条款。违反该政策可能导致五角大楼吊销其记者证。大多数在大楼内工作的媒体机构拒绝签署新政策，被迫撤离。
包括《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》、新闻国家、《国会山报》和福克斯新闻在内的多家媒体组织均拒绝签署五角大楼的新限制政策。其中，福克斯新闻此前曾雇佣国防部长彼得·赫格斯泰斯担任主持人。
在拒绝签署五角大楼限制条款的媒体撤离后，五角大楼内的媒体机构仅限于同意其条件的右翼新闻网站和博主。自上周美国对伊朗军事行动开始以来，部分（但非全部）记者已持访客通行证重返五角大楼，并获准参加赫格斯泰斯和参谋长联席会议主席丹·凯恩将军的简报会。
在周五的听证会上，媒体律师请求法院阻止五角大楼执行新政策，称这违反了《第一修正案》赋予的新闻自由。
“五角大楼开放以来，媒体一直都在里面。”五角大楼新闻协会律师大卫·舒尔茨在周五代表媒体方陈述时表示。
当司法部律师暗示记者提问可能导致敏感国防信息泄露构成犯罪时，弗里德曼法官表示不满。
“提问本身不是犯罪，”弗里德曼说，”你只需说明出于国家安全考虑无法回答该问题即可。”
司法部律师迈克尔·布伦斯承认提问本身不构成犯罪，但他辩称，如果这些问题导致未经授权的机密信息泄露，五角大楼在决定记者是否构成安全风险并吊销其记者证时可将此考虑在内。
弗里德曼还尖锐地质疑，为何五角大楼对《华盛顿邮报》设立的举报热线提出异议，却对极右翼网红劳拉·卢默也发起的举报热线无动于衷——而卢默目前是少数几个签署五角大楼政策以获得大楼内报道资格的媒体之一。
“《华盛顿邮报》的举报热线是否构成刑事教唆？”弗里德曼问道。
“我认为不是，法官大人。”布伦斯回答。
“你不确定《华盛顿邮报》的举报热线是否构成刑事教唆？”弗里德曼再次追问。
“不，法官大人。”布伦斯回答。
“那么，如果你们都不确定，他们怎么可能确定呢？”弗里德曼反问道。
布伦斯告诉弗里德曼，《华盛顿邮报》的举报热线之所以有问题，是因为它针对军事人员，而卢默的举报热线则更为笼统。
弗里德曼要求双方在周一前提交关于如何制定最终裁决令的建议。
埃莉诺·沃森对本报道有贡献。
Federal judge appears skeptical of recent Pentagon policy restricting journalists’ activities
Updated on: March 6, 2026 / 5:41 PM EST / CBS News
A federal judge sharply questioned the government on Friday about a new Pentagon policy that places strict controls over what journalists can report if they wish to be allowed to continue working from inside the building.
In a tense exchange, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman for the District of Columbia said he has lived through many military and national security conflicts, from the Vietnam War to the Sept. 11 attacks, and noted that the press played a vital role in all of those events 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.”
The New York Times sued the Pentagon late last year after it ordered all of the credentialed journalists who worked inside the building to sign a lengthy set of restrictions on their news gathering activities. Violating the policy could lead to the revocation of their press passes by the Pentagon. Most of the press outlets who worked in the building refused to sign the new policy and were forced to vacate.
CBS News is among an array of media organizations — including Newsmax, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NewsNation, The Hill and Fox News, which previously employed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as an on-air host — that declined to sign the new Pentagon restrictions.
After the departure of news organizations that would not agree to the Defense Department’s restrictions, the outlets inside the Pentagon were limited to right-wing news sites and bloggers who did agree to its conditions. Since the U.S. military operation against Iran began last week, some — but not all — reporters have returned to the Pentagon with visitors’ passes and have been allowed to attend briefings by Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine.
At Friday’s hearing, lawyers for the press asked the court to block the Pentagon from enforcing the new policy, arguing it is a violation of the First Amendment freedom of the press.
“The press has always been in the building as soon as it opened,” said David Schulz, a lawyer for the Pentagon Press Association who was among a team of attorneys arguing on the media’s behalf on Friday.
During questioning by the government, Judge Friedman bristled when a Justice Department attorney appeared to suggest it could be a crime if journalists ask questions that solicit the disclosure of sensitive national defense information.
“Asking a question is not criminal,” Friedman said. “All you have to say is I can’t answer that question for national security reasons.”
Michael Bruns, the Justice Department attorney, acknowledged that asking questions itself is not a crime, but if those questions led to the disclosure of unauthorized classified information, then the Pentagon could take that into account when determining whether a journalist could pose a security risk and should have a press pass revoked, he argued.
Friedman also sharply questioned why the Pentagon took issue with a tip line set up by the Washington Post, but had no concerns when far-right influencer Laura Loomer also promoted a tip line and is currently among the few outlets who signed the Pentagon’s policy so she could report from inside the building.
“Is the Washington Post tip line criminal solicitation?” Friedman asked.
“I don’t think so, your honor,” Bruns said.
“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 told Friedman that the Washington Post tip line was problematic because it targeted military members while Loomer’s is more general in nature.
Friedman asked both sides to respond by Monday with suggestions for how he should structure an order before he makes a final ruling.
Eleanor Watson contributed to this report.