New York Times Sues Pentagon Again Over Media Access Limits (1)

The New York Times has again challenged restrictions on press access in the Pentagon, after the Trump administration revived limits on credentialed reporters in response to a court ruling against it.

The Times argued in its lawsuit, filed Monday in Washington federal court, that the Department of Defense policy requiring staff escorts for credentialed reporters, among other directives, is “patently unconstitutional,” in violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and other protections.

The news organization also accused the department of trying to avoid complying with an earlier federal court ruling and retaliating against the Times, “not only for their editorial viewpoint but also for vindicating their constitutional rights in litigation.”

The lawsuit represents the outlet’s second lawsuit against the Pentagon over its policies limiting credentialed reporters’ access. It also comes less than a month after a federal appeals court allowed the administration to continue enforcing the escort mandate, after a judge found it violated an earlier ruling.

Gibson Dunn partner Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., an attorney for the New York Times, said in a statement Monday that the escort requirement “is a blatant effort to thwart independent journalism that violates the First Amendment, defies the district court’s earlier injunction, departs from longstanding tradition, and hurts the American people by trying to hide important information from them during wartime.”

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, in a post on X, defended the department’s media policy and criticized the New York Times’ latest lawsuit as “nothing more than an attempt to remove the barriers to them getting their hands on classified information.”

The New York Times sued the Defense Department over an earlier version of the policy last year, which gave officials discretion to revoke press credentials if they determined the reporter posed “security or safety risk,” including by soliciting unauthorized information. The New York Times and other outlets, including Bloomberg, refused to sign the policy and had to hand in their press credentials.

Senior Judge Paul Friedman of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the Pentagon in March, after finding the policy violated the First Amendment.

Days later, the Defense Department responded by restoring credentials for the New York Times reporters, but imposed a new policy that required all reporters with Pentagon press passes to be escorted by an employee while in the building. It also moved media offices to a separate building and prohibited “intentional inducement of unauthorized disclosure” of information.

Friedman struck that reinstated policy down as well. The judge said the revived rules conflicted with his earlier court ruling in an April decision that warned of a dangerous “curtailment of First Amendment rights.”

However, a divided three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit partially lifted Friedman’s ruling last month, allowing the department to continue requiring credentialed reporters to be escorted while in the building.

The appeals court explained that the escort mandate was likely a new policy that wasn’t covered by Friedman’s earlier ruling.

The case is The New York Times Co. v. Department of Defense, D.D.C., No. 1:26-cv-01690, 5/18/26.