Washington
Judge orders Pentagon to lift policy that NYT journalists be accompanied by an escort
A federal judge has ordered the Defense Department to temporarily halt its requirement that New York Times journalists be accompanied by an official escort, in another setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict media access at the Pentagon.
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman in Washington said that policy violated the First Amendment and he issued a preliminary ruling Tuesday barring the requirement while The New York Times continues its legal battle against the department’s restrictions.
The order did not specify whether journalists from other organizations would also get relief from that policy.
The newspaper in May sued the Defense Department for the second time in five months. The lawsuits have played into an escalating tension between the U.S. media and the Republican administration, both in the public arena and the courts.
The Times hailed Friedman’s ruling.
“Today’s well-reasoned decision reaffirms the First Amendment rights of the press to cover the Pentagon without restrictions designed to prevent the public from knowing what the military is doing,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson. “The court recognized that the Pentagon’s hastily implemented new policy was a clear violation of the Constitution.”
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell posted on X late Tuesday that the department “strongly disagrees” with Friedman’s decision. “This ruling strips away reasonable security measures and will make it easier for sensitive and classified information to reach our adversaries.”
The Times first sued in December over rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seeking to limit media access.
The escort policy was implemented in March after a ruling by Friedman that had struck down earlier restrictions. He said they violated the rights of Times reporter Julian E. Barnes and the paper.
The following month, the judge ruled that the interim policy violated his March order. But the escort policy remained in place when an appeals court stayed part of Friedman’s ruling while the government appealed. The appeals process is ongoing.
The Times and other outlets walked out of the Pentagon in October rather than agree to Hegseth’s restrictions. They continue to cover the U.S. military from outside the building. A new press corps approved by the department currently occupies the Pentagon space.
New York
Democrats in half of states sue over Trump’s Medicaid work rules
NEW YORK (AP) — Democrats in 25 states and the District of Columbia on Monday sued the Trump administration over its recent guidance on new Medicaid work requirements, arguing the strict rules will prevent eligible Americans from accessing the care they need.
The attorneys general and governors who filed the lawsuit allege that an interim final rule released earlier this month by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversteps the text of the law last summer that set in motion the changes to Medicaid.
They claim the Republican administration’s narrow interpretation of parts of the statute, including new limits to a medical frailty exemption, will create harmful coverage barriers and chaos in states that have been rushing to implement new systems by the January deadline.
“Added administrative burdens will cause individuals who are eligible for Medicaid to lose or be denied coverage,” the plaintiffs write. “People with disabilities, patients in the middle of cancer treatment, or those struggling with another serious or complex health condition, shouldn’t be at risk of losing the care that helps maintain their health.”
Spokespeople for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and CMS, the agencies named in the lawsuit, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has promoted the new rules as commonsense measures to eliminate government freeloading and preserve benefits for those who need them most.
The new Medicaid restrictions, which Democrats have criticized, were part of Trump’s big tax and policy law in 2025. The change affects those covered through an expansion in most states that gave more lower-income people access to the government’s safety net healthcare program.
Starting Jan. 1, expansion enrollees age 19 to 64 will have to show that they work or do community service at least 80 hours a month or are in school at least half the time. There are exceptions for those considered medically frail or in addiction treatment programs, among others.
This month’s announcement from CMS caught states off guard with a new definition of medical frailty. The law had said medically frail people include those who have substance use disorders, disabilities or serious medical conditions.
But the CMS rule went further, saying someone’s condition must “significantly impair” their ability to work, volunteer or attend school at the rates required in the law for them to be granted an exemption.
In 2027 and once in 2028, the patient can attest that they meet this definition. But when they try to renew coverage in 2028, they’ll need to prove it. Health analysts and state Medicaid directors have said they aren’t clear on what existing documentation could prove that point.
In the lawsuit, states allege that this change came “contrary to months of regular communications with CMS and preliminary guidance materials upon which Plaintiff States based their implementation plans.” They say CMS has still not provided states with enough clarity on how they can update their systems appropriately.
Kinda Serafi, a partner at the legal and consulting firm Manatt Health who is working with states to make the changes, said the administration “moved the goalposts” with its rule on medical frailty.
“By going beyond the clear language of the statute, CMS opened the door to this court challenge,” she said.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the Democrats suing the administration, said the new rule puts thousands of her state’s residents at risk.
Georgia
NFL player’s brother charged with murder after mother found dead
ATLANTA (AP) — The brother of NFL player Calais Campbell has been charged with murder after police found their 71-year-old mother dead at a home in Atlanta during a welfare check.
Arrest warrants say Nateal Campbell’s throat was cut and Ciarre Campbell was found in possession of a knife. Officers found her unresponsive when they arrived at around 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, according to a police statement.
Ciarre Campbell was booked into the Fulton County Jail and had an initial court hearing scheduled for Wednesday morning on charges including aggravated assault and murder. No lawyer who could comment on the charges was listed in online court records.
The Campbell family issued a statement asking for privacy while they deal with “overwhelming grief.”
“We are devastated to share that the Campbell Family has lost its matriarch, Mrs. Nateal Campbell,” the family statement said. “While the details of her passing are still being investigated, we take comfort in knowing she is reunited with our father, her beloved Chuck, and in the arms of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
A defensive lineman for the Baltimore Ravens, Calais Campbell is entering his 19th NFL season after signing a one-year, $5.5 million contract in April.
The 2017 first-team AP All-Pro selection has been voted to the Pro Bowl six times in a career that started as a second-round pick in 2008 with the Arizona Cardinals.
The 39-year-old former Miami Hurricane spent 10 seasons with the Cardinals and also played in Jacksonville, Atlanta and Miami.
Campbell has 117 career sacks in 278 games, including 259 starts.
Washington
Judges strike down overhaul of student loan forgiveness program
WASHINGTON (AP) — A pair of federal judges struck down a Trump administration overhaul to a public service forgiveness program for student loans, ruling Tuesday in separate cases in favor of advocates who said the program risked becoming a tool for political retribution.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Massachusetts vacated the U.S. Education Department’s changes, saying they overstepped the agency’s power and threatened to violate First Amendment protections for free speech. The ruling came in response to a pair of lawsuits filed by more than 20 states along with a coalition of nonprofit groups and cities.
In Washington, D.C., District Judge Amir Ali in Washington issued a similar ruling in a case brought by nonprofit organizations. The rulings came a day before the new rules were set to take effect.
Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said the department was evaluating next steps.
“The Department stands behind this commonsense policy to ensure that taxpayer dollars are never used to subsidize illegal activities,” Kent said in a written statement.
Congress created Public Service Loan Forgiveness in 2007 to encourage college graduates to work in government and nonprofit jobs. It promised to forgive their federal student loans after they worked in public service jobs for 10 years.
Last year, the Trump administration moved to add new eligibility rules that would strip the benefit from workers whose employers are deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.”
The overhaul targeted nonprofits and government organizations that support causes at odds with the Trump administration’s priorities.
It gave the education secretary power to exclude groups from the program if they engage in the trafficking or “chemical castration” of children, illegal immigration or supporting terrorist organizations. Its definition of “chemical castration” included using hormone therapy or drugs that delay puberty.
The overhaul amounted to a major reworking of a program that has canceled loans for more than 1 million Americans. Nonprofits and government groups said it undercut an important benefit that helped attract college graduates to jobs that traditionally pay less than the private sector.
“This decision is a win for the communities that depend on local nonprofits and for the workers who serve them,” said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case.
One of the plaintiffs in the Washington case, Student Defense, said the judge’s ruling is a victory for student loan borrowers.
“Public servants should not have to worry that the federal government will punish them because of their employer’s mission or perceived political views,” said Aaron Ament, Student Defense’s president.
Joun said the new rules threatened to impose the administration’s policy views on employers. The judge also faulted the department for failing to connect its definitions of illegal activity to criminal statutes.
“The Department cannot create new criminal prohibitions through rulemaking,” he wrote.
The judge also questioned the department’s stated rationale for proposing the new rules, drawing on its own estimates that fewer than 10 employers would be barred from the program per year.
“The Department offers no explanation for why a Final Rule with such sweeping consequences is necessary to address the possibility that, at most, ten employers each year may be engaging in illegal activity,” Joun wrote.
In his ruling, Joun noted that more than 100 supporting briefs were filed on behalf of the groups challenging the rules, while none were filed in support of the Trump administration’s change.
Judge orders Pentagon to lift policy that NYT journalists be accompanied by an escort
A federal judge has ordered the Defense Department to temporarily halt its requirement that New York Times journalists be accompanied by an official escort, in another setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict media access at the Pentagon.
U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman in Washington said that policy violated the First Amendment and he issued a preliminary ruling Tuesday barring the requirement while The New York Times continues its legal battle against the department’s restrictions.
The order did not specify whether journalists from other organizations would also get relief from that policy.
The newspaper in May sued the Defense Department for the second time in five months. The lawsuits have played into an escalating tension between the U.S. media and the Republican administration, both in the public arena and the courts.
The Times hailed Friedman’s ruling.
“Today’s well-reasoned decision reaffirms the First Amendment rights of the press to cover the Pentagon without restrictions designed to prevent the public from knowing what the military is doing,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson. “The court recognized that the Pentagon’s hastily implemented new policy was a clear violation of the Constitution.”
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell posted on X late Tuesday that the department “strongly disagrees” with Friedman’s decision. “This ruling strips away reasonable security measures and will make it easier for sensitive and classified information to reach our adversaries.”
The Times first sued in December over rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seeking to limit media access.
The escort policy was implemented in March after a ruling by Friedman that had struck down earlier restrictions. He said they violated the rights of Times reporter Julian E. Barnes and the paper.
The following month, the judge ruled that the interim policy violated his March order. But the escort policy remained in place when an appeals court stayed part of Friedman’s ruling while the government appealed. The appeals process is ongoing.
The Times and other outlets walked out of the Pentagon in October rather than agree to Hegseth’s restrictions. They continue to cover the U.S. military from outside the building. A new press corps approved by the department currently occupies the Pentagon space.
New York
Democrats in half of states sue over Trump’s Medicaid work rules
NEW YORK (AP) — Democrats in 25 states and the District of Columbia on Monday sued the Trump administration over its recent guidance on new Medicaid work requirements, arguing the strict rules will prevent eligible Americans from accessing the care they need.
The attorneys general and governors who filed the lawsuit allege that an interim final rule released earlier this month by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversteps the text of the law last summer that set in motion the changes to Medicaid.
They claim the Republican administration’s narrow interpretation of parts of the statute, including new limits to a medical frailty exemption, will create harmful coverage barriers and chaos in states that have been rushing to implement new systems by the January deadline.
“Added administrative burdens will cause individuals who are eligible for Medicaid to lose or be denied coverage,” the plaintiffs write. “People with disabilities, patients in the middle of cancer treatment, or those struggling with another serious or complex health condition, shouldn’t be at risk of losing the care that helps maintain their health.”
Spokespeople for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and CMS, the agencies named in the lawsuit, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has promoted the new rules as commonsense measures to eliminate government freeloading and preserve benefits for those who need them most.
The new Medicaid restrictions, which Democrats have criticized, were part of Trump’s big tax and policy law in 2025. The change affects those covered through an expansion in most states that gave more lower-income people access to the government’s safety net healthcare program.
Starting Jan. 1, expansion enrollees age 19 to 64 will have to show that they work or do community service at least 80 hours a month or are in school at least half the time. There are exceptions for those considered medically frail or in addiction treatment programs, among others.
This month’s announcement from CMS caught states off guard with a new definition of medical frailty. The law had said medically frail people include those who have substance use disorders, disabilities or serious medical conditions.
But the CMS rule went further, saying someone’s condition must “significantly impair” their ability to work, volunteer or attend school at the rates required in the law for them to be granted an exemption.
In 2027 and once in 2028, the patient can attest that they meet this definition. But when they try to renew coverage in 2028, they’ll need to prove it. Health analysts and state Medicaid directors have said they aren’t clear on what existing documentation could prove that point.
In the lawsuit, states allege that this change came “contrary to months of regular communications with CMS and preliminary guidance materials upon which Plaintiff States based their implementation plans.” They say CMS has still not provided states with enough clarity on how they can update their systems appropriately.
Kinda Serafi, a partner at the legal and consulting firm Manatt Health who is working with states to make the changes, said the administration “moved the goalposts” with its rule on medical frailty.
“By going beyond the clear language of the statute, CMS opened the door to this court challenge,” she said.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the Democrats suing the administration, said the new rule puts thousands of her state’s residents at risk.
Georgia
NFL player’s brother charged with murder after mother found dead
ATLANTA (AP) — The brother of NFL player Calais Campbell has been charged with murder after police found their 71-year-old mother dead at a home in Atlanta during a welfare check.
Arrest warrants say Nateal Campbell’s throat was cut and Ciarre Campbell was found in possession of a knife. Officers found her unresponsive when they arrived at around 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, according to a police statement.
Ciarre Campbell was booked into the Fulton County Jail and had an initial court hearing scheduled for Wednesday morning on charges including aggravated assault and murder. No lawyer who could comment on the charges was listed in online court records.
The Campbell family issued a statement asking for privacy while they deal with “overwhelming grief.”
“We are devastated to share that the Campbell Family has lost its matriarch, Mrs. Nateal Campbell,” the family statement said. “While the details of her passing are still being investigated, we take comfort in knowing she is reunited with our father, her beloved Chuck, and in the arms of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
A defensive lineman for the Baltimore Ravens, Calais Campbell is entering his 19th NFL season after signing a one-year, $5.5 million contract in April.
The 2017 first-team AP All-Pro selection has been voted to the Pro Bowl six times in a career that started as a second-round pick in 2008 with the Arizona Cardinals.
The 39-year-old former Miami Hurricane spent 10 seasons with the Cardinals and also played in Jacksonville, Atlanta and Miami.
Campbell has 117 career sacks in 278 games, including 259 starts.
Washington
Judges strike down overhaul of student loan forgiveness program
WASHINGTON (AP) — A pair of federal judges struck down a Trump administration overhaul to a public service forgiveness program for student loans, ruling Tuesday in separate cases in favor of advocates who said the program risked becoming a tool for political retribution.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Massachusetts vacated the U.S. Education Department’s changes, saying they overstepped the agency’s power and threatened to violate First Amendment protections for free speech. The ruling came in response to a pair of lawsuits filed by more than 20 states along with a coalition of nonprofit groups and cities.
In Washington, D.C., District Judge Amir Ali in Washington issued a similar ruling in a case brought by nonprofit organizations. The rulings came a day before the new rules were set to take effect.
Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said the department was evaluating next steps.
“The Department stands behind this commonsense policy to ensure that taxpayer dollars are never used to subsidize illegal activities,” Kent said in a written statement.
Congress created Public Service Loan Forgiveness in 2007 to encourage college graduates to work in government and nonprofit jobs. It promised to forgive their federal student loans after they worked in public service jobs for 10 years.
Last year, the Trump administration moved to add new eligibility rules that would strip the benefit from workers whose employers are deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.”
The overhaul targeted nonprofits and government organizations that support causes at odds with the Trump administration’s priorities.
It gave the education secretary power to exclude groups from the program if they engage in the trafficking or “chemical castration” of children, illegal immigration or supporting terrorist organizations. Its definition of “chemical castration” included using hormone therapy or drugs that delay puberty.
The overhaul amounted to a major reworking of a program that has canceled loans for more than 1 million Americans. Nonprofits and government groups said it undercut an important benefit that helped attract college graduates to jobs that traditionally pay less than the private sector.
“This decision is a win for the communities that depend on local nonprofits and for the workers who serve them,” said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case.
One of the plaintiffs in the Washington case, Student Defense, said the judge’s ruling is a victory for student loan borrowers.
“Public servants should not have to worry that the federal government will punish them because of their employer’s mission or perceived political views,” said Aaron Ament, Student Defense’s president.
Joun said the new rules threatened to impose the administration’s policy views on employers. The judge also faulted the department for failing to connect its definitions of illegal activity to criminal statutes.
“The Department cannot create new criminal prohibitions through rulemaking,” he wrote.
The judge also questioned the department’s stated rationale for proposing the new rules, drawing on its own estimates that fewer than 10 employers would be barred from the program per year.
“The Department offers no explanation for why a Final Rule with such sweeping consequences is necessary to address the possibility that, at most, ten employers each year may be engaging in illegal activity,” Joun wrote.
In his ruling, Joun noted that more than 100 supporting briefs were filed on behalf of the groups challenging the rules, while none were filed in support of the Trump administration’s change.
