Along with calling the federal government’s rationale for the brand new rule “exceptionally weak,” Choose F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Courtroom for the District of Massachusetts discovered that DHS didn’t present any nationwide safety or “fraud-and-abuse” proof to defend this rule’s impression on journalists. Repeatedly citing issues about press freedom, Choose Saylor additionally wrote that the rule raised questions on whether or not it was meant to claim better authorities management over the press.

The courtroom choice highlighted that the brand new rule had “rampant” prospects for abuse, “particularly, the plain chance that the visas of international journalists who’re crucial of the federal government (or, extra notably, DHS officers) won’t be renewed.” The decide additionally famous that this might result in potential retaliation in opposition to American journalists working overseas.

In RSF’s submitted touch upon the proposed rule, the group argued {that a} 240-day restrict would stop journalists from finishing in-depth reporting on complicated points, chill press exercise because of potential retaliatory extension denials, and hurt American journalists working overseas — all of which have been cited within the courtroom’s choice.

The federal government had proposed these stricter guidelines in August 2025. DHS tried to justify its choice by stating that visa holders must be vetted extra totally. RSF first known as on DHS to desert this proposal final yr, asserting it could impose an undue burden on journalists and create a system with a excessive potential for presidency abuse. RSF additionally led a gaggle of 17 different press freedom organizations to name on DHS to drop the proposed adjustments. RSF once more denounced the rule in July when the federal government issued the present model of the ultimate rule.