The New York Times and its veteran intelligence reporter, Julian E. Barnes, filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon on Thursday, accusing the Defense Department of trampling on reporters’ First Amendment rights through a sweeping new set of reporting restrictions.
Those rules—implemented in October—bar journalists from gathering or publishing any information that the government hasn’t explicitly cleared, including declassified documents and off-the-record conversations. It marks a stark break from decades of baseline transparency. Reporters who refused to sign were warned that their access would be suspended.
Many walked. According to the Times, six of its journalists handed in their Pentagon badges, joining dozens from across major newsrooms who also refused to agree to the terms.
“Fixed it” by Clay Bennett
The Times’ complaint is the first major legal challenge to the policy, seeking not only to block the restrictions but to restore the press passes of reporters now covering the world’s largest military bureaucracy from the outside. In the meantime, what’s left of the on-site Pentagon press corps is dominated by far-right outlets that had no objection to signing.
In its filing, the Times calls the Pentagon’s rules “exactly the type of speech- and press-restrictive scheme that the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have recognized violates the First Amendment.” The lawsuit argues the policy “seeks to restrict journalists’ ability to do what journalists have always done—ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories [to] the public beyond official pronouncements.”
A broad array of outlets declined to sign the agreement: The Guardian, The Washington Post, the Atlantic, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, NPR, HuffPost, and Breaking Defense, among them. Even Fox News and Newsmax—typically friendly to Republican administrations—balked.
The Times is asking a federal judge in Washington to halt the rules. In a statement to CNN and other outlets, a spokesperson said the paper will “vigorously defend against the violation of these rights, just as we have long done throughout administrations opposed to scrutiny and accountability.”
The spokesperson added that “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.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his aides are expected to argue that the rules are needed to protect national security and prevent leaks. But the political intent is hard to miss. Hegseth’s high-profile welcome this week for dozens of pro-Trump influencers—invited for orientation sessions and briefings at the Pentagon—helped make that clear. All signed the new restrictions and, according to his team, represent the “new Pentagon press corps,” despite having little to no background in military reporting.
Meanwhile, seasoned reporters who refused the pledge continue to cover the Pentagon from the outside. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell dismissed their absence in October, saying those journalists “chose to self-deport” and insisting “they will not be missed.”
The Pentagon Press Association, which represents most of the reporters who pushed back, said it is “encouraged” by the Times’ lawsuit and the paper’s decision to “step up and defend press freedom.” Attorneys expect other outlets to file supporting briefs in the coming weeks.
Related | Trump’s New York Times lawsuit gets thrown out for its ridiculousness
The suit names the Defense Department, Hegseth, and Parnell as defendants. It’s also unfolding against the backdrop of another legal fight: President Donald Trump’s renewed $15 billion defamation claim against the Times, refiled after a judge tossed the original complaint for being too long.
The clampdown on press access extends beyond the rules at issue in the lawsuit. Earlier this year, the Pentagon stripped several mainstream outlets of in-house workstations. And in September, Hegseth issued a memo limiting when and how military leaders can engage with the public.
For journalists who have covered the building for years, the shift is unmistakable. And for now, the Times is leading the legal—and symbolic—push to claw back some semblance of accountability.
Whether other newsrooms will join it in court remains an open question. But the stakes are clear: the country’s most powerful institution is testing how far it can go in deciding who gets to report on it.
