this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
88 points (98.9% liked)

politics

29145 readers
3564 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Judge seems skeptical of Pentagon’s restrictive protocol but did not rule on forcing compliance with an earlier order

Federal judge Paul Friedman seemed skeptical of the new press policy implemented by the Pentagon last week, calling aspects of it “weird” and Kafkaesque.

Friedman struck down key aspects of the previously implemented Pentagon media policy on 20 March, but at the latest hearing on Monday stopped short of ruling on a motion filed by the New York Times to force compliance of his decision.

Friedman was particularly skeptical about the ways in which press space was being provided to the seven New York Times reporters, whom he previously ruled should have their press access badges returned.

The Times, along with dozens of other news organizations, chose not to sign the new restrictions implemented by the Pentagon last fall and returned their long-held passes. The Times sued the Trump administration over the policy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Like, use more appropriate vocabulary weird. Duh

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, so fucking children against their will weird?

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 points 9 hours ago

No, weird like they’re a bunch of goofy goobers. Such a silly pentagon, let’s not call them anything that might imply the institutions are completely fucking evil and in need of burning down.