Defense

NYT files new lawsuit over Pentagon press restrictions

Comments:

by Zach Schonfeld - 05/18/26 3:54 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Zach Schonfeld - 05/18/26 3:54 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

NOW PLAYING

The New York Times sued on Monday to block a requirement that reporters be escorted on Pentagon grounds, asserting it is unconstitutional just like the Defense Department’s earlier press restrictions.

Previously, The Times convinced a judge to block strict credentialing rules that limit how defense reporters can solicit information. The Pentagon responded by unveiling a new set of restrictions that includes the escort requirement.

The suit seeks to block it and return to the pre-Trump rules.

“Stories based on routine unplanned interactions between journalists and Pentagon personnel on Pentagon grounds, stories built on dozens of conversations with Pentagon press officers from various parts of the Department and across the building, stories that capture the mood and atmosphere within the Pentagon during times of consequential military operations—all are examples of what Plaintiffs can no longer report,” the complaint reads.

The Hill has reached out to the Pentagon for comment.

Pentagon officials have defended the changes by insisting they’re necessary to combat leaks of classified material and protect national security.

It’s been met with condemnation from various outlets and media advocates, who’ve cast the changes as an attack on press freedom. The Times alleged that newsworthy information “will be simply unavailable to The Times and to the public that relies on The Times for fact-based, independent journalism.”

The suit claims the Pentagon’s policy is an effort to suppress speech and that it amounts to unconstitutional retaliation against the newspaper in violation of the First Amendment. It also argues the policy violates due process protections and that it’s arbitrary and capricious.

Late last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit allowed the escort requirement to go into effect. The panel ruled the requirement wasn’t covered by a court injunction the newspaper won in its earlier lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs bring this second lawsuit to challenge the Interim Policy on its own terms,” the new case states.

Add as preferred source on Google