Federal judge to hear arguments about Pentagon’s restrictions on press access WASHINGTON — A federal judge in the nation’s capital will convene on Friday to address the legality of new Department of Defense regulations requiring credentialed journalists to report only on information officially cleared by the government, or face revocation of their Pentagon press badges. The New York Times’ legal team contends the policy, implemented in mid-2025, aims to limit journalists’ ability to question government officials and uncover stories that go beyond official statements. The 21-page agreement, which media outlets were asked to sign, bars the collection or dissemination of unapproved information, including classified data and off-the-record discussions, whether within or outside the Pentagon’s premises. “The Policy was not promulgated in a vacuum,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., representing The New York Times. “Pentagon leadership has faced a stream of what it perceives to be unfair and unfavorable press coverage and, in response, promulgated the Policy to jettison journalists and news organizations whose reporting the Department disfavors, and to chill future reporting critical of the Pentagon.” Major broadcasters such as NBC News refused to sign the agreement, resulting in the loss of routine Pentagon access. The Department of Justice, in defense of the policy, argues it is “reasonable” as it balances national security concerns with the privilege of press access. “The Department could have decided not to allow any press access to the Pentagon: access to the Pentagon is a privilege, not a right,” stated Michael Bruns, a DOJ attorney. Meanwhile, journalists whose credentials were revoked were granted temporary entry to the Pentagon this week for briefings on the Iran conflict led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine. In a sworn declaration, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Pete Williams, now an NBC News correspondent, criticized the policy as undermining public trust in the military. “When I was at the Department, we did not decide who was eligible to obtain or maintain a press credential based on whether we thought a particular reporter or news organization would report favorably about the Department or its leadership,” Williams wrote. “There were times when journalists published critical stories or reported information that Department officials believed had come out too soon or wished had not been made public. But Department leadership understood and respected the role of an independent press in our democracy, and cutting off access to the Pentagon for journalists could never stop reporting that was critical of the Department.” Williams emphasized the importance of in-person access to quality journalism: “Trying to cover the Justice Department or the Pentagon without regularly being present in the building is like trying to write a restaurant review without going to the restaurant and trying the food.” The case echoes last year’s AP lawsuit against the Trump administration’s ban on White House event access, which was upheld by a federal appeals court pending further review. Gary Grumbach, an NBC News legal affairs reporter based in Washington, D.C., contributed to the coverage of this development.

Frozen in Time: The Iranian Embassy in the US Remains Vacant Forty years after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the once-luxurious Iranian Embassy in Washington, DC, still stands dormant. Its halls, once filled with celebrity guests, bubbly drinks, and delicacies, now echo with silence. The embassy became a symbol of strained relations following the 444-day hostage crisis, during which Iranian militias seized the US embassy in Tehran. This event severed diplomatic ties between the two nations, a rift that has persisted through decades of geopolitical shifts. Escalation and Immediate Repercussions The recent US-Israeli strikes on Iran have triggered a cascade of consequences. Airspace across the Middle East was effectively shut down for several days after the attacks, with the Emirates flight marking the first disruption in a series. BBC correspondent Sarah Smith was present at a White House gathering where President Trump delivered remarks, largely adhering to a prepared script. His comments, the first public statements since the operation began, underscored a renewed focus on Iran. “Major combat operations have commenced,” declared Trump during his address, signaling a shift in the conflict’s trajectory. Diplomatic and Military Dynamics Iran’s retaliation included strikes on Israeli targets, as captured by BBC presenter Clive Myrie in Tel Aviv’s bomb shelter. Meanwhile, the US claimed six of its F-15 jets were “mistakenly shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses,” with all crew members reported in stable condition. Trump warned of further casualties, citing the deaths of three US service members in the initial phase of the assault. “The Iranian regime is waging an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder targeting the United States,” the president asserted, framing the conflict as a necessary response. Iranian state media confirmed the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, a development that has sparked mixed reactions. Protests erupted in American cities on Saturday, with more demonstrations planned for the coming days. The BBC’s Helena Humphrey, based in Washington DC, analyzed the broader implications of the strikes, while Jerusalem-based Jon Donnison reported on Trump’s narrative of the operation’s escalation. Path to Reopening Embassies Despite the renewed tensions, the possibility of restoring diplomatic ties remains a topic of discussion. Helena Humphrey highlighted the conditions required to revive the embassies, emphasizing the need for a significant thaw in relations. As the conflict unfolds, the focus remains on both immediate consequences and long-term geopolitical outcomes.

Open University Lifts ‘Ancient Palestine’ Ban After UKLFI Pressure The Open University (OU) has seemingly rescinded a pledge it once made to the pro-Israel lobby group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) regarding the use of the term “ancient Palestine,” as highlighted by Novara Media. This decision follows a complaint from UKLFI, which had previously pushed for the exclusion of the term to avoid creating a “hostile or offensive learning environment for Jewish and Israeli students.” In November 2025, UKLFI sent a letter to the OU, asserting that the term “ancient Palestine” was not historically accurate for the region until over a century after the Virgin Mary’s lifetime. The group argued that the name “Syria Palaestina” was introduced by Roman Emperor Hadrian, and claimed the OU’s use of “ancient Palestine” in a humanities module violated the Equality Act. The module described the Virgin Mary’s birthplace as “ancient Palestine” and included a map with the same label. Adrienne Scullion, the OU’s head of the faculty of arts and social sciences, responded on 18 December, acknowledging that the term had become “problematic” in recent times. She stated, “We will not use the term again in future learning materials, and we will explain and contextualise its use in existing materials for current learners.” Meanwhile, the Index of Repression, produced by the European Legal Support Centre and Forensic Architecture, classified UKLFI as a key actor in campaigns against Palestinian solidarity. Following UKLFI’s publicisation of the OU’s reversal, over 600 academics and public figures signed an open letter earlier this year, urging an “urgent public retraction” of the OU’s commitments to UKLFI. “These commitments risk undermining the OU’s statutory duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. They also expose staff to harassment and enable the spread of disinformation,” the letter claimed. The signatories included prominent historians such as Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim, alongside Palestinian scholars Rashid Khalidi and Nur Masalha. The letter was supported by the OU’s University and College Union branch. However, the university’s reversal has sparked debate, with an unnamed staff member noting a “clear contradiction” between the current statement and prior promises to UKLFI. The OU’s statement, according to the staff member, “does not constitute a reasonable interpretation of the letter from 18 December.” This comes after a similar controversy involving the British Museum, which removed the term Palestine from exhibits on ancient Egypt and the Phoenicians. UKLFI had attributed this change to a complaint they had submitted, though the museum denied any direct link. Novara Media reported that an OU spokesperson clarified academics can “freely use the term ‘ancient Palestine’ where scholarly appropriate” without a mandatory contextual note. The spokesperson added the original commitment applied to a single unit of work, now “scheduled for replacement.” Nonetheless, critics argue the statement undermines the university’s earlier concessions to UKLFI. Other institutions have also faced pressure from UKLFI. Recently, it was revealed that Encyclopaedia Britannica had revised several entries in its Britannica Kids section, removing the term from regional maps after UKLFI’s influence. This trend continues to raise concerns about the impact of the group’s advocacy on academic discourse.