Pentagon Adopts New Limits for Journalists After Court Loss - The New York Times

Media|Pentagon Adopts New Limits for Journalists After Court Losshttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/23/business/media/pentagon-closes-journalists-work-area.htmlShare full articleSee more updates from this storyMarch 23, 2026, 9:15 p.m. ETIn October, the Pentagon adopted a policy that empowered it to declare journalists “security risks” and revoke their press passes if they engaged in any conduct that the Pentagon believed threatened national security.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York TimesSkip to contentSkip to site indexPentagon Adopts New Limits for Journalists After Court LossThe Defense Department said it would close the Pentagon’s work area for journalists, among other changes, after a judge found the existing media policy unconstitutional.In October, the Pentagon adopted a policy that empowered it to declare journalists “security risks” and revoke their press passes if they engaged in any conduct that the Pentagon believed threatened national security.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York TimesSupported bySKIP ADVERTISEMENTListen · 4:59 min Share full articleBy Erik WempleReporting from WashingtonMarch 23, 2026Updated 9:15 p.m. ETThe Defense Department said on Monday that it was taking a new approach to limiting access to media organizations, after a federal judge ruled on Friday that major parts of its current policy were unconstitutional, in a case brought by The New York Times.The Pentagon is closing the workspace used for years by journalists with credentials to cover the military, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, wrote in a memo to senior Pentagon leadership. A new area for the press will be set up in an annex outside the main Pentagon building, he said, and all journalists now seeking physical access to the Pentagon will require an escort.In addition, the department is changing the wording of some of the rules for journalists requesting a credential, Mr. Parnell wrote. He said the changes, like making more explicit definitions of prohibited activities, addressed concerns raised by the judge last week.The Defense Department said it planned to appeal the judge’s ruling. But the Pentagon said its new policies would comply with the ruling while still preserving the department’s security and “without conceding the validity of the court’s analysis.” The Pentagon has argued in numerous legal filings that access to the Pentagon is a privilege and not a right.A spokesman for The Times, Charlie Stadtlander, said on Monday: “The new policy does not comply with the judge’s order. It continues to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the press. We will be going back to court.”The new rules are the latest effort by Pentagon officials to limit journalists’ access to the Defense Department. Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, has had an adversarial stance toward the news media since he took over last year. He previously proposed denying access to the Pentagon to a reporter from NBC News, then removed several news organizations from their on-site workstations. Months later, he curtailed the unescorted roaming privileges of journalists within the complex.In October, the Pentagon adopted a policy that empowered the department to declare journalists “security risks” and revoke their press passes if they engaged in any conduct that the Pentagon believed threatened national security. Instead of signing the new policy, dozens of journalists from traditional news outlets turned in their press passes, opting to cover the military from outside the complex. The Pentagon later welcomed a reconstituted press corps consisting of pro-Trump commentators and influencers.ImagePentagon reporters carrying their belongings out of the Pentagon after turning in their press badges in October.Credit...Win McNamee/Getty ImagesThe Times sued, arguing that the rules violated the First Amendment. Routine news-gathering activities, like asking questions and seeking information from sources, were punishable under the rules, the company contended. It also said the Pentagon had given itself unbridled discretion to enforce the rules.Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the company. He wrote in his ruling on Friday that the Pentagon’s policy rewarded reporters who were “willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by department leadership.”Judge Friedman ordered the Pentagon to immediately restore the press passes of seven journalists for The Times. The Pentagon Press Association, a group representing journalists on the national security beat, also pressed the department for reinstatement for other journalists who had handed in their passes.The Pentagon had not returned the passes to Times journalists as of Monday afternoon.In its lawsuit, The Times took aim at restrictions in the October policy relating to “solicitation” of information by reporters. That policy said First Amendment protections did not apply when journalists “solicit government employees to violate the law by providing confidential government information.” In his ruling, Judge Friedman wrote that this provision was susceptible to “ambiguous interpretation.”The new version replaces “solicitation” with “intentional inducement of unauthorized disclosure.”“We used more words to say the same thing and to foreclose creative misinterpretations,” Cmdr. Tim Parlatore, a special adviser to Mr. Hegseth, said in an interview.The department revamped the policy over the weekend, Commander Parlatore said, because the ruling “excised all of the security provisions and enforcement mechanisms and ordered that we immediately issue passes under the revised, toothless policy.”He said housing journalists in the annex ensured that they could attend news conferences and interviews with Pentagon officials while the policy regulated their ability to “talk in the hallways and be able to induce unauthorized disclosures, which was really our whole concern from the beginning.”Commander Parlatore said members of the Pentagon press corps were “more than welcome” to apply for credentials under this new policy. He said credentials would be issued promptly to Times journalists, as the judge ordered.See more on: U.S. Department of Defense, The New York TimesShare full articleRelated ContentAdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTSite IndexSite Information Navigation© 2026 The New York Times CompanyNYTCoContact UsAccessibilityWork with usAdvertiseT Brand StudioPrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite MapCanadaInternationalHelpSubscriptionsManage Privacy Preferences

The Department of Defense, under the leadership of Pete Hegseth, initiated a significant shift in its relationship with the media following a federal court ruling that deemed a core component of its existing policy unconstitutional. This development, precipitated by a lawsuit filed by The New York Times, stemmed from a policy enacted in October 2026 that afforded the Pentagon the authority to designate journalists as “security risks” and subsequently revoke their press passes based on any conduct perceived as threatening national security. The legal challenge centered on the breadth of this discretionary power and its potential to unduly restrict First Amendment rights related to news gathering.

Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of The New York Times, finding the Pentagon’s policy overly broad and susceptible to manipulation, particularly concerning the definition of “solicitation” of information. The court’s decision highlighted the ambiguity inherent in the original policy’s provision prohibiting journalists from “soliciting government employees to violate the law by providing confidential government information.” This vague language, the judge determined, could be interpreted to encompass routine news-gathering activities such as questioning and seeking information from sources, effectively criminalizing legitimate journalistic practice. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate reinstatement of press passes for seven Times journalists and mandated a revised policy.

In response to the court order, the Pentagon initiated a rapid overhaul of its media access policies over the weekend. This involved a shift away from the term “solicitation” to “intentional inducement of unauthorized disclosure,” a change intended to provide a more precise and less ambiguous definition. Commander Tim Parlatore, a special adviser to Secretary Hegseth, explained that this modification aimed to prevent “creative misinterpretations” of the policy and safeguard the department’s security interests. The revised policy also incorporated a plan to relocate the Pentagon’s workspace for journalists to an annex outside the main building, accompanied by the requirement of escorts for all journalists seeking physical access.

This strategic shift was driven by the assessment that the initial policy had been effectively neutralized by the court’s ruling. Commander Parlatore stated that the department’s actions were prompted by the removal of all security provisions and enforcement mechanisms following the court’s order, leaving only the revised, ostensibly “toothless” policy. The relocation to the annex was intended to facilitate journalists’ access to news conferences and interviews while simultaneously regulating their ability to engage in “hallway conversations” and potentially “induce unauthorized disclosures,” which had been the primary concern of Pentagon officials.

The Pentagon’s response was met with immediate action from The New York Times, which continued to challenge the legality of the revised policy. Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for The Times, asserted that the new measures did not comply with the court’s order and continued to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the press. Despite the legal setback, Commander Parlatore affirmed that the department welcomed applications for credentials from Times journalists and intended to issue passes promptly, adhering to the court’s directives. The Pentagon’s actions reflect a deliberate attempt to navigate the legal challenge while maintaining its asserted prerogative to control access to sensitive information and ensure national security.