ListNook

Th1rte3n1334 Apr 9, 2026 +782

Something tells me an executive order is coming that bars certain reporters from the Pentagon Press Releases.

782

hackingdreams Apr 10, 2026 +263

Followed shortly by yet another judge suspending the executive order because it violates the reporters' first amendment rights. And around and around we go.

263

Spire_Citron Apr 10, 2026 +157

That's the problem when there are no actual punishments for misusing your powers and all your commands must be followed until a court intervenes. You can just keep spamming the same tricks over and over.

157

onarainyafternoon Apr 10, 2026 +54

Because there is no law against *trying* to use Executive Orders for whatever you want. The problem here lies with congress giving up its power slowly over the last 80 years.

54

Spire_Citron Apr 10, 2026 +17

Legally there isn't, but I think that's part of the problem. There ought to be a standard where it is illegal to use your authority to take an action that you knew or should have known wasn't legal. You can't rely on Congress to police their own party. There's an inherent bias there.

17

mike_b_nimble Apr 10, 2026 +29

And that's where impeachment comes in. The reason there aren't hundreds of laws regulating presidential powers is because all you need is a single rule that says you will be removed from power if a majority of the legislature thinks you're abusing it. That strategy falls apart when all 3 branches are captured by partisans.

29

Spire_Citron Apr 10, 2026 +4

Problem is, that not exactly a rare occurrence.

4

TheRabidDeer Apr 10, 2026 +7

Bear in mind, these rules were made when we didn't have a party system in place and we were even warned about succumbing to a two party system by both George Washington and John Adams.

7

NoodledLily Apr 10, 2026 +3

Judges are starting to hold attorneys accountable. But they can go much further. Same with state bars. They've lost deference.. which is insane. Like judges no longer take the justice department at their word that they arent flat out lying. Or that their client isnt lying (client being our governmtn)

3

Spire_Citron Apr 10, 2026 +1

Yeah, I do think a lot of things aren't as entirely without consequence as they treat them.

1

NoodledLily Apr 10, 2026 +1

they f****** deserve ^3 more than they're getting problem is this will last beyond when we kick them out and it hurts the rest of us took 100 years to build. 10 months for a toddler to destroy. it's way harder to piece back together. especially when toddler shit in every decision marker's mouth. hard to forget that taste. pavlovian almost 💩😂

1

onarainyafternoon Apr 10, 2026 +2

Totally agree.

2

suzanious Apr 10, 2026 +1

Blatant bias 🤨, it's maddening.

1

clik_clak Apr 10, 2026 +8

This is the main problem with having a complicit, corrupt supreme court that made the president have essentially unlimited power. Biden was too much of a scared coward to do anything with the power that he was given, and now we have a president that made us the laughing stock of the world. This shit couldn't even be made into a semi-believable movie, yet here we are with it happening in real life.

8

laplongejr Apr 10, 2026 +1

> Biden was too much of a scared coward to do anything with the power that he was given He had no such power. SCOTUS has yet to decide on what is *not* an official act. POTUS's power is unlimited only if SCOTUS agrees with them...

1

clik_clak Apr 10, 2026 +2

And they’ve done so much to stop him so far…

2

profstotch Apr 10, 2026 +2

Surprised we haven't had an EO that tries to say judges can't block EOs

2

SparkyMuffin Apr 10, 2026 +2

Missing the month or two they get what they want with no punishment. They essentially just use EOs and the Speed of Law to get what they want and stall

2

suzanious Apr 10, 2026 +1

This is so insane! I never dreamed our country would turn out like this. But here we are and all the reasonable norms and diplomacy have been thrown clean out the window. 🤷‍♀️

1

FabianN Apr 10, 2026 +10

That was done, and then blocked, which lead to this latest move.

10

Krillin113 Apr 10, 2026 +4

Nah they’ll just ignore it outright

4

skyysdalmt Apr 10, 2026 +4

For national security reasons of course. Reasons they can't disclose because of national security reasons.

4

LittleShrub Apr 9, 2026 +2646

The free speech absolutists are going to be offended!

2646

Neuromangoman Apr 9, 2026 +414

How dare the journalists abridge the government's right to free speech like that!

414

zuzg Apr 9, 2026 +139

Jeez they already put a *Journalist* at the head of the Pentagon what more do you people want?

139

swingadmin Apr 9, 2026 +63

Can we get a game show host as president?

63

PlatyPunch Apr 9, 2026 +24

With the current guy, there's nowhere to go but up.

24

CandidBee8695 Apr 10, 2026 +23

(The current guy was a game show host)

23

Cuddlesthemighy Apr 10, 2026 +17

Honestly I'm kind of jealous if they weren't aware of it.

17

stoopitmonkee Apr 10, 2026 +6

It’s even better (worse) when you say reality tv game show host.

6

CandidBee8695 Apr 10, 2026 +5

I guess. I don’t really delineate.

5

DetroitTabaxiFan Apr 10, 2026 +1

Only if it's Sam Reich.

1

DarthCaligula Apr 10, 2026 +4

> they already put a Journalist at the head of the Pentagon Is he even a real journalist? Or just a co host of an entertainment "news" show? Honest question. Edit: You have to go to school and get a degree to be a legit journalist. Or at least you used to.

4

HerbaciousTea Apr 10, 2026 +13

I am not joking when I say I have ACTUALLY heard that said unironically by republicans, that directly reporting what someone says is slander and a "free speech violation" for making them look bad. They think free speech means they can say whatever they want and no one is allowed to react to them in a way they don't like.

13

Techn028 Apr 9, 2026 +15

Don't you know we're in a WAR, can't have CNN leaking everything/s

15

FreeUsePolyDaddy Apr 10, 2026 +3

Pravda will tell us what we need to know. /s

3

Fallouttgrrl Apr 10, 2026 +7

Right? Currently Hegseth can say anything! You really want him to be restricted to answering *questions* and being *fact checked*

7

BWWFC Apr 9, 2026 +4

if money is free speech... and the GOV wants to start spit-bars my way, i'm down to listen ;-p

4

TheShipEliza Apr 10, 2026 +5

Taibbi in shambles

5

PurelyAnonymous Apr 9, 2026 +350

Cool, so what punishment will the Pentagon receive?

350

allanon1105 Apr 9, 2026 +94

A stern talking to and a hard glare. I’m sure they’ll get right on it.

94

No_Square236 Apr 10, 2026 +14

Susan Collins might even be concerned. Look out.

14

Daft00 Apr 10, 2026 +3

No way they're getting a hard glare... Even the sternness of the "talking to" might be optimistic

3

tacobelmont Apr 10, 2026 +2

Chuck Schumer may wear his glasses extra low on his nose this time!

2

i_am_voldemort Apr 9, 2026 +24

Judge ordered them to obey his order and have an administration official sign an affidavit attesting to compliance If they don't do that, or lie, the judge will likely have a show cause hearing. He could jail someone or assign fines The problem is POTUS could tell USMS not to arrest and jail the person for contempt... And now we get a Constitutional crisis between the Executive and Judicial Branches.

24

FreeUsePolyDaddy Apr 10, 2026 +15

Which we need to happen. Judges that avoid this, are simply complying in advance. They may as well have never bothered with their original ruling and just phoned in a statement of "whatever the govt says". It is way past time to make the dysfunction politically embarassing.

15

bp92009 Apr 10, 2026 +8

Then judges need to do what's in their legal rights and deputize someone to enact their rulings. While judges certainly rely on the marshals in historical precedent, they only do so because it's expedient. They are under no legal requirements to do so. Judges can pick... just about anyone, tell them that they are charged with enforcing the decisions of the court, with whatever force the judge deems prudent.

8

Thinking_persephone Apr 10, 2026 +4

Another constitutional crisis***

4

Lonely_Nebula_9438 Apr 10, 2026 +1

It’s not really a crisis we know exactly what happens, it’s happened before. The judicial branch doesn’t have the power to enforce its decisions, thays by design, enforcement is the executive’s power. It’s entirely a matter if Congress as the legislative branch wants to play referee and make one side back down.

1

InstructionPurple911 Apr 9, 2026 +19

I'm betting the cut the budget for snow crab right out from under ol' Pentagon Petey

19

no_one_likes_u Apr 9, 2026 +7

Snow crab is for poors like the enlisted or taxpayers, not pentagon high up. They get king crab.

7

MeThinksYes Apr 9, 2026

that better than Dungeness?

0

r_z_n Apr 9, 2026 +8

Hegseth's complimentary 64oz morning growler will be downgraded to 48oz for a week.

8

hapnstat Apr 10, 2026 +2

That's just breakfast, though. Elevenses is still at 64oz.

2

showhorrorshow Apr 9, 2026 +7

Right. What's the point of rights if the govt can violate them with impunity?

7

ComradeJohnS Apr 9, 2026 +2

maybe they’ll continue to not do audits

2

El-Sueco Apr 10, 2026 +1

A bottle of whisky

1

ItsDokk Apr 10, 2026 +1

[This.](https://youtu.be/gBzoKIvvbI0) Maybe…

1

DrowningKrown Apr 9, 2026 +288

Man, if I told a Y2K republican that 25 years later they would be cheering on federal government citizen lists and tracking, press suppression, and anti-first amendment practices, their head would probably explode.

288

Greizen_bregen Apr 9, 2026 +135

It shows they had no moral or ethical compass in the first place. Instead of their convictions determining the direction of their political party, they just blindly adopted every single stance they were told to. This is what a lack of critical thinking looks like.

135

Umikaloo Apr 10, 2026 +4

I don't like to generalise, but I've noticed a similar phenomenon related to "cancel culture". Withdrawing support of someone after finding out new information is seen as hypocrisy rather than moral consistency. It ties in to the *politics as spectator sport* tendency, where you're expected to support your home team no matter what. Even though in reality, your personal convictions should drive your allegiance, and not the other way around.

4

moosekin16 Apr 10, 2026 +79

Republicans in the 70s and 80s pushed *hard* for harsher drug offense laws, specifically to target minority groups and hippies. You can’t do that without maintaining a list to track who gets arrested. Before that, the Red Scare encouraged people to report their neighbors if they harbored “communist” or “anti-American” sentiment. Again, that only works if you keep a list of “dissidents.” Republicans have always wanted to list and track the “wrong” type of Americans.

79

DisillusionedPatriot Apr 10, 2026 +5

Knowing history, has never been more necessary and easy, yet so uncommon.

5

lunaticfridgeprime Apr 9, 2026 +29

It wouldn't when you tell them who is being targeted with these actions. Republicans have never, ever had a moral code. They are just marginally more open now with their true goals.

29

4th-Estate Apr 10, 2026 +11

I remember y2k GOP being just fine with the Patriot Act.

11

kevlarbaboon Apr 10, 2026 +6

Well that's before they realized the grave threat trans people, immigrants, fair elections and Iran (???!!!!) are to our great Nation.

6

Gamiac Apr 10, 2026 +5

...are you talking about the same Bush-era Republicans that cheered on the Patriot Act, TSA and ICE?

5

FillFrontFloor Apr 10, 2026 +3

You may need to reeducate yourself about them because I can definitely tell you they'll be more than okay with it

3

brucemo Apr 10, 2026 +1

I'm all in on shitting on Republicans but I still think it's honestly true that Y2K Republicans were willing to do sketchy things. Democrats too, unfortunately.

1

Li_liminal_spaces Apr 10, 2026 +1

The last election they were attacking Biden for requesting social media companies moderate Covid misinformation and when they were private citizens requesting naked pictures of Hunter Biden be removed. That apparently was a massive injustice against free speech.

1

mister_milkshake Apr 10, 2026 -2

Just imagine to then turn to a dem from that time and be like, “and you’re going to be the party that is obsessed with policing speech, and will align strongly with the trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry against “my body my choice.” It would be like the twin towers exploding and falling to the ground. And nobody else there will get that reference.

-2

Herkfixer Apr 9, 2026 +46

Until the Supremes tell them they can do what they want until they decide to take the case up in 2.75 years.

46

bimbo_baggins_ Apr 9, 2026 +96

I’m sure they’ll be right on that.

96

subpoenaThis Apr 9, 2026 +13

can't be to brash in your actions, they'll need to put all the planning and consequence prediction resources that have been sitting idle to use. They might have a plan to restore access in an orderly fashion on a 4 year timescale.

13

aluke000 Apr 9, 2026 +9

No surprise Pete Smegbreath sees himself above the law too.

9

A_Nonny_Muse Apr 9, 2026 +8

Is that before or after ICE deports them to gitmo?

8

Sedert1882 Apr 9, 2026 +4

Hegseth will keep on dodging the orders because there's no consequences for not properly abiding by them.

4

GravyVortex Apr 9, 2026 +17

Wild that we need a federal judge to remind the Pentagon “freedom of the press” is still a thing. Someone should livestream every briefing now, just to make the point.

17

igetproteinfartsHELP Apr 9, 2026 +6

Opinion https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv4218-55

6

crayegg Apr 9, 2026 +5

After stating the Pentagon's position that the court had removed security and enforcement mechanisms, the court says, In short, this is nonsense. (Nice) In a footnote about the Pentagon explaining the e***** simply had not been fully briefed, the court says, Really? (Hilarious)

5

deviltrombone Apr 9, 2026 +5

Meanwhile, as the wheels of justice slowly turned, the regime went off on numerous adventures, not that the press would have mattered even a little bit.

5

Indigoh Apr 10, 2026 +5

Again? This is, what, the 4th time a judge has made this ruling?

5

PM_ME_UR_VULVASAUR_ Apr 9, 2026 +9

So, this will equate to about 10 billion extra on the defence budget?

9

EuphoricCrashOut Apr 9, 2026 +3

Now arrest anyone and everything that did the illegal thing. Just because it was 'temporary' and had to be overruled, or whatever, doesn't mean it wasn't illegal. MAKE ARRESTS FFS That's how you stop bad people from continuing to do bad things. They'll just order it again xD

3

ohnohelpwhereamI Apr 9, 2026 +2

Wait, so the people banned for asking naughty questions are gonna be able to come back?

2

JesusWuta40oz Apr 10, 2026 +2

They won't. Nothing will happen.

2

TheVideogaming101 Apr 10, 2026 +2

So when they don't comply then what?

2

008Zulu Apr 10, 2026 +1

Then they send a strongly worded letter of condemnation, and call it a day.

1

JWils411 Apr 10, 2026 +2

I'm sure this regime, known for following laws, will get right on this. /s

2

invalidpassword Apr 10, 2026 +2

Yeah, it's probably a good idea for us to know what our Dept. of "War" is doing these days. They do essentially have a blank check to destroy civilizations at will.

2

vizag Apr 10, 2026 +2

Ok this is good but what happens if the pentagon refuses to honor the order? What can the judge do?

2

blender4life Apr 10, 2026 +2

Wild how long this shit takes

2

Wolf9455 Apr 9, 2026 +1

Checks and balances baby!

1

Trifang420 Apr 9, 2026 +1

Haha, that should work.

1

McRibs2024 Apr 9, 2026 +1

Pete Hegseth getting the beer sweats hearing this.

1

Additional_Rich_5249 Apr 9, 2026 +1

Yes. F them. Free press rules.

1

IEatBigWetBoogers Apr 9, 2026 +1

Hshahahaha!!! Good one! And someone once told me judges don’t have a sense of humor.

1

toomanymarbles83 Apr 10, 2026 +1

Good luck with that. We'll see kegsbreath before a grand jury before we see this have any effect.

1

guiltyas-sin Apr 10, 2026 +1

"Orders." How quaint. Like this admin gives a ripe shit, or for now, face any consequences.

1

dmisfit21 Apr 10, 2026 +1

I’m sure they’ll get right on this.

1

zer04ll Apr 10, 2026 +1

Too late they are owned by one company now for the most part

1

Shartin_luther_king Apr 10, 2026 +1

Didn’t you hear, freedom of the press is very unconditional!

1

I_am_not_JohnLeClair Apr 10, 2026 +1

At least they’re good at respecting a judge’s decision 🙄

1

CurlOfTheBurl11 Apr 10, 2026 +1

Good. Who's going to enforce the ruling though?

1

atreeismissing Apr 10, 2026 +1

6 months later. That's why this administration *seems* like they get so much done. They act first then wait for a judge to tell them to stop doing something illegal which takes a long time. Judges need to stop them first, then let the lawsuit's play out.

1

coalitionofilling Apr 10, 2026 +1

Pentagon will restore press and then intentionally not call on any of them when they raise their hands to ask a question. You already see it in the Whitehouse with Trump. First thing he asks is "who are you with?" to see if it's some propaganda rag owned by one of his buds that's declared fealty.

1

fffan9391 Apr 10, 2026 +1

crazy how long it takes for these decisions to be reversed.

1

E_seven_20 Apr 10, 2026 +1

Sure...if the judge could enforce that, it might mean something. ...but, it will be ignored, and appealed, so that doesn't matter either.

1

1aysays1 Apr 10, 2026 +1

Okay, but are they actually going to enforce it? I think not.

1

wrathmont Apr 10, 2026 +1

Nature is healing, slowly but surely.

1

Jumpstart_411 Apr 10, 2026 +1

Need arrests and put things back to some order. Time like this, I wonder if deputise by the courts is even possible. Enemies of the state is obviously causing social disorder to our society.

1

Tarvonae Apr 10, 2026 +1

About time they let the reporters back in to admire the architecture

1

Nicholas-Steel Apr 10, 2026 +1

He's already building a special area in the Whitehouse for him to restrict the press to that area and require e****** everywhere else.

1

Niceromancer Apr 9, 2026 -7

Time to remind everyone when Obama decided to restrict press access of fox news and their ilk due to them lying and trying to clip farm so God damn much other news organizations stood with them to get their press credentials back. But none of those organizations stepped up to try to restore those who were removed from the current admin

-7

Maktaka Apr 10, 2026 +6

No press organization was left with access after the censorship policy was enacted, nobody remained to argue for the restoration of those purged. The only organization that agreed to Hegseth's policy was OANN, and they sure aren't in the business of being the press, they exist to be a mouthpiece of the regime. Everyone else pulled out, including Fox, and they all filed lawsuits such as the one from this article challenging the legality of what has once again been proven in a court of law to be an illegal order.

6

bkgn Apr 10, 2026 +3

Fox News got so scared of OANN and Newsmax stealing viewership from them after the 2020 election that they swung even harder into rightwing crazytown. Fox News has not left much room for anyone to swing even wilder to the right, but I guess OANN found one way.

3

jonsnowme Apr 10, 2026 +2

Fox News isn't and never was a news organization. They're an entertainment network. Hope this helps.

2

wjames0394 Apr 9, 2026 -15

Should be only Fox News.

-15

redoctobershtanding Apr 10, 2026 +2

Why? To shove completely biased, politically controlled information down our troops' throats?

2

US judge orders Pentagon to restore press access

💬 Send a Message

119 Comments