New York Times says Pentagon flouting judge’s order on access

Pentagon Faces New Legal Battle Over Press Restrictions Despite Court Order

The Pentagon has defied a federal court order blocking enforcement of controversial press credential policies, according to attorneys for The New York Times who urged a judge Monday to compel the Defense Department to comply with the ruling issued just 10 days ago.

During a second round of arguments, Times attorney Theodore Boutrous told U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman that Pentagon officials implemented a revised press policy that effectively circumvents the judge’s March 20 decision, which found the original credential policy violated journalists’ First Amendment rights.

“They’ve only made things worse,” Boutrous said, arguing that the Pentagon’s response was to impose “radical new restrictions” on journalists instead of restoring proper access.

Friedman previously ordered the Pentagon to reinstate press credentials for seven Times reporters and emphasized that his ruling applied to “all regulated parties.” The judge has not yet issued a ruling on the latest allegations of non-compliance.

Government attorney Sarah Welch defended the Defense Department’s actions, claiming the revised policy includes several “safe harbors” that protect reporters engaged in routine newsgathering. “The department has fully complied in good faith with that order,” Welch told the court.

The ongoing dispute reveals a deepening tension between press access and the Pentagon’s new approach to media relations under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. In a filing Sunday, Times national security reporter Julian Barnes described a puzzling situation where reporters were given credentials for a new press area in the Pentagon library, but were denied access to the corridors or shuttle buses needed to reach it.

“How weird is that?” Judge Friedman responded. “Is it Catch-22? Is it Kafka? What’s going on here?”

The conflict began in October when reporters from mainstream news organizations walked out of the building rather than agree to new restrictive rules. The Times filed suit against the Pentagon and Hegseth in December, challenging the constitutionality of the policy.

According to Times attorneys, the Pentagon’s revised “interim” policy continues to violate the court’s order “both in letter and spirit” by barring credentialed reporters from entering the building without an escort. The policy also reportedly imposes unprecedented rules about when reporters can offer anonymity to sources.

“The intent is obvious: The Interim Policy is an attempted end-run around this Court’s ruling,” Times attorneys wrote in court documents.

Government lawyers countered that the Pentagon’s revised policy fully complies with the judge’s directives, arguing that the plaintiffs are asking the court to expand the original order beyond its intended scope.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell has already indicated the administration plans to appeal Friedman’s March 20 decision, signaling a continued legal battle ahead.

The Pentagon Press Association, which includes Associated Press reporters, has criticized the interim policy, saying it preserves provisions already deemed unconstitutional while adding new restrictions. The association’s attorney noted that the policy “moves reporters’ workspace to an annex facility outside the Pentagon and prohibits any reporter from moving within the Pentagon itself without an escort, further limiting their ability to actually do journalism.”

The current makeup of the Pentagon press corps has shifted toward conservative outlets that agreed to the new policies. Journalists from organizations that refused to consent, including the Associated Press, have continued reporting on military matters but face significant access challenges.

In his original order, Judge Friedman—a Clinton appointee—emphasized that recent U.S. military operations in Venezuela and Iran highlight the critical need for public access to information about government activities.

The case raises significant questions about press freedom and government transparency at a time of heightened global military engagement. As the legal battle continues, the ability of journalists to effectively report on Defense Department activities remains severely constrained, potentially limiting public understanding of U.S. military operations and decision-making.