WASHINGTON — The New York Times filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday against the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell, accusing the military of imposing unconstitutional restrictions on journalistic activities that violate the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and press freedom. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges a 21-page policy introduced in October that requires reporters seeking access to the Pentagon to sign an agreement placing sweeping limits on newsgathering, including prohibitions on soliciting information from government employees without prior official approval. The suit argues that these rules effectively close the doors of the Pentagon—historically open to the press—to independent journalists who report critically on the department’s operations.
The policy, which took effect on October 6, 2025, represents a sharp departure from decades of Pentagon media guidelines that allowed reporters to move freely throughout much of the building, conduct impromptu interviews, and pursue stories beyond scheduled briefings. Under the new rules, journalists must pledge not to “solicit” unauthorized information—even if unclassified—from Pentagon personnel, a requirement the Times contends criminalizes standard reporting practices such as asking sources for background details or tips. Violation risks permanent revocation of Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials (PFACs), the badges that grant physical access to the building in Arlington, Virginia. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Times Company and its longtime Pentagon correspondent Julian E. Barnes, seeks an immediate injunction to block enforcement and a judicial declaration that the policy’s First Amendment–related provisions are unlawful.
“This policy is exactly the type of speech- and press-restrictive scheme that the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have recognized violates the First Amendment,” the complaint states, citing precedents that require clear, non-arbitrary standards for media access to government facilities. The Times also invokes the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, arguing that the Pentagon has granted itself virtually unlimited discretion to punish reporters for publishing stories it dislikes, even if the information was obtained outside the building. In a statement accompanying the filing, a Times spokesperson said the policy “is an attempt to exert control over reporting the government dislikes, in violation of a free press’s right to seek information under their First and Fifth Amendment rights protected by the Constitution.”
The lawsuit comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faces mounting bipartisan criticism over multiple controversies. A Pentagon inspector general report delivered to Congress on December 2 found that Hegseth endangered U.S. troops by sharing sensitive operational details—including launch times for airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen—via an unencrypted Signal group chat in March 2025, an incident now known as “Signalgate.” A journalist was inadvertently added to the chat, exposing plans hours before a March 15 strike. The report concluded Hegseth violated department policies on personal device use for official business. Democrats, including Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner, have called the episode part of a “broader pattern of recklessness” and demanded Hegseth’s resignation. Some Republicans have also expressed concern, withholding full support pending further review.
Hegseth is simultaneously under intense scrutiny for a September 2, 2025, military strike on a speedboat off the coast of Venezuela. The operation, part of the Trump administration’s aggressive campaign against vessels allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang and drug trafficking, initially disabled the boat, leaving two survivors in the water. A second strike was then ordered, which multiple sources say was intended to destroy the vessel and eliminate any witnesses. Military law experts and lawmakers from both parties have warned that intentionally targeting survivors could constitute a war crime under international law. Hegseth has vigorously denied ordering attacks on individuals, insisting the second strike targeted the boat itself and that any suggestion otherwise is “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory.” Congressional committees are investigating, and several senators have demanded video footage and detailed timelines.
Pentagon officials have defended the press-access policy as a necessary measure to prevent leaks that could harm national security, describing it as “common sense.” Spokesperson Sean Parnell said the department is aware of the lawsuit and looks forward to addressing the arguments in court. Critics, including the Pentagon Press Association, contend the rules amount to retaliation against outlets that have aggressively covered Hegseth’s controversies, effectively replacing veteran defense reporters with pro-administration influencers and friendly outlets.
The policy’s implementation triggered a widespread boycott: dozens of credentialed journalists from major organizations—including The Washington Post, CNN, NBC News, Fox News, and others—surrendered their Pentagon badges in protest. Today, only about 15 reporters remain credentialed inside the building, most of them freelancers, foreign correspondents, or representatives of MAGA-aligned media. Earlier this week, Hegseth personally hosted orientation sessions for a “new Pentagon press corps” that included conservative commentators and social-media personalities who signed the restrictive agreement without objection.
The New York Times, represented by prominent First Amendment attorney Theodore J. Boutrous, framed the lawsuit as a broader defense of public access to information at a time of significant turmoil within the Defense Department. “We intend to vigorously defend against the violation of these rights, just as we have long done throughout administrations opposed to scrutiny and accountability,” the company stated.
Legal analysts expect the case to be hard-fought and potentially reach the Supreme Court, as it tests the limits of government authority to regulate press access inside secure military facilities while balancing national-security concerns against constitutional protections. The outcome could reshape media-military relations for decades and determine how aggressively the press can hold the Pentagon accountable during a period of heightened controversy surrounding its leadership.
