New York Times accuses Pentagon of defying judge’s press access order

DoD announces ‘interim’ policy for journalists decried by newspaper as ‘end-run around the court’s ruling’

The New York Times on Tuesday accused the Pentagon of disobeying a judge’s ruling that undid much of the restrictive agreement journalists were forced to sign or lose access to the building.

The judge, Paul Friedman, granted an injunction on Friday that overturned much of the language in the “media in-brief” document that had so concerned many news organizations that cover the Pentagon that almost all journalists chose instead to give back their press badges. He also ordered that seven journalists from the Times be returned their badges.

Instead of complying with the judge’s order, the Pentagon chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, announced on Monday night that the department would permanently close a designated work space for journalists known as “correspondents’ corridor” and create a “new and improved press workspace” in an annexed facility outside the building. The Pentagon also issued a revised policy that now requires journalists to be escorted into the building.

“Rather than comply with the court’s order and accompanying opinion, defendants are contemptuously defying it – both in letter and spirit in a newly released ‘interim’ policy,” lawyers for the Times wrote. “Among other things, for the first time in history, the interim policy bars reporters with press passes from entering the building without an escort, sets up unprecedented rules governing when a reporter can offer anonymity to a source, and leaves in place provisions that this court’s order struck.”

Although the government claimed that it satisfied the judge’s order, the revised policy still prevents journalists from intentionally inducing the “unauthorized disclosure” of government information – though not from receiving “unsolicited information”. And it includes an assertion that by offering a potential source anonymity, journalists are acknowledging that a defense department employee was not authorized to release the information.

“The intent is obvious: the interim policy is an attempted end-run around this court’s ruling,” the Times charged, saying it constitutes “nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to flout this court’s ruling and prevent journalists and news organizations whose editorial viewpoints defendants dislike from engaging in independent, protected newsgathering and reporting at the Pentagon”.

Journalists who cover the Pentagon have strongly pushed back against new press access rules.

The Pentagon Press Association, which represents journalists who cover the defense department (which Trump has attempted to rename the Department of War), strongly rebuked Parnell’s announcement, which it called “a clear violation of the letter and spirit of last week’s ruling by a US federal court”. The organization said it was consulting with legal counsel on next steps.

“At such a critical time, we ask why the Pentagon is choosing to restrict vital press freedoms that help inform all Americans,” the PPA said in its statement.

Parnell has said the Pentagon plans to appeal the judge’s ruling.

Seth Stern, director of advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation, said on Tuesday that the Times was correct to challenge the Pentagon’s new press policies.

“The revised policy is not a good faith effort to comply with Judge Friedman’s order,” he said. “It adds mostly meaningless window dressing while retaining the core constitutional violation – subjecting journalists to punishment for doing their jobs.”

While the lawsuit was filed and litigated by the Times, many other news organizations felt that the ruling should also open the door for them to regain access to the building.

Dozens of news organizations including the Guardian opted last October to give back their press passes rather than sign on to a new policy that included strict rules on the “solicitation” of information from defense employees, with vague language guiding how exactly reporters would be able to get the material they needed to do their jobs.

CNN was among the networks that said it would seek to regain press access. In that vein, one CNN journalist went to the Pentagon on Monday hoping to regain their press credential but was not given firm guidance, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

Now it seems likely that Judge Friedman will have to weigh in on whether the new policies announced by Parnell are in line with his ruling last Friday.

“It will be up to the courts to decide if this latest policy complies with what the judge ordered,” Barbara Starr, a former CNN Pentagon correspondent, told the Guardian. “But the fact is that all reporters undergo an FBI background check as a condition of receiving a press credential. So [the defense department] in fact retains authority to revoke it if there is a reason beyond that [Secretary Pete Hegseth] just doesn’t like the coverage.”

Starr also lamented the loss of “correspondents’ corridor” and the close physical access it provided for journalists to quickly get updates from military officials on breaking developments. “Working from a remote building outside the Pentagon does not provide that,” she said. (While the press room will not be in the Pentagon building, Parnell said it would still be “on Pentagon grounds”.)

Although the vast majority of journalists for large news organizations no longer have guaranteed access to the Pentagon, many have been let back in to attend press briefings about Iran conducted by Hegseth, though they have been relegated to the back of the briefing room.

Instead, the vast majority of questions have been asked by a group of conservative journalists and pro-Maga influencers, some of whom have asked substantive questions about American strategy in Iran and the timeline of the war.