Journalists vacate Pentagon as new press policy takes effect
More than 30 news outlets declined to sign the new press policy. Many of them packed up their offices.
The battle over press access to the Pentagon and the First Amendment fallout over new restrictions on journalists continues to play out in court.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman concluded in an April 9 ruling that the Department of War, formally known as the Department of Defense, had failed to comply with his March order in the New York Times’ lawsuit over the matter, which blocked the department from implementing a restrictive press policy first introduced in 2025.
The Pentagon responded by issuing a revised policy that closed the “Correspondents’ Corridor,” a longtime workspace for journalists in the Pentagon, and required them to have escorts into the building.
But that policy, according to Friedman, “invoked slightly different language to achieve that same unconstitutional result.”
The Pentagon cannot “take steps to circumvent the Court’s injunction and expect the Court to turn a blind eye,” he wrote.
“This ruling powerfully vindicates both the Court’s authority and the First Amendment’s protections of independent journalism,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a partner at Gibson Dunn, the law firm that is representing the New York Times in the case.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the department would appeal the ruling, maintaining that it “has at all times complied with the Court’s Order.”
Here’s what to know about the case and its latest developments:
What’s the background of the case?
A press policy that went into effect in October said journalists who “solicit” information from Pentagon personnel that is not authorized for public release could lose their security access to the building. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the matter as a national security issue.
The vast majority of news outlets did not agree to the new policy, and scores of journalists lost access to the building as a result. The remaining Pentagon press corps is largely composed of conservative news websites and networks along with non-traditional media outlets.
The New York Times sued the Pentagon over the policy in December, calling it “exactly the type of speech- and press-restrictive scheme that the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have recognized violates the First Amendment.”
In his March ruling, Friedman acknowledged the importance of protecting American troops and war plans but said it was “more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing” given President Donald Trump‘s recent “incursion” into Venezuela and war with Iran.
That prompted the Pentagon to issue the revised policy that required journalists to be escorted in the building and shuttered the “Correspondents’ Corridor.”
“A new and improved press workspace will be established in an annex facility outside the Pentagon, but still on Pentagon grounds, and will be available when ready,” Parnell said at the time.
Parnell said the policy reflected the department’s commitments to both transparency and national security.
The New York Times alleged that the new policy violated Friedman’s order in a subsequent legal filing.
What did the judge just rule?
Friedman concurred in his April 9 opinion. He had “no choice but to conclude,” he wrote, that the department’s decision to close the “Correspondents’ Corridor” and require journalists to be escorted through the Pentagon “are not security measures or efforts to make good on prior commitments but rather transparent attempts to negate the impact of this Court’s Order.”
Friedman concluded the 20-page opinion by declaring that “what this case is really about” is Hegseth’s attempt to “dictate the information received by the American people, to control the message so that the public hears and sees only what the Secretary and the Trump Administration want them to hear and see.”
“The Constitution demands better,” he wrote. “The American public demands better, too.”
He ordered the Pentagon to file a status report by April 16 outlining the steps it took to comply with the ruling.
How did the New York Times and the Pentagon respond?
The New York Times said Friedman’s ruling “sends a clear message to the Pentagon” about its need to comply with the court’s order in an April 9 X post.
“We are pleased that Judge Friedman saw the revised policy issued by the Pentagon after his last decision for what it was: a poorly disguised attempt to continue to violate the constitutional rights of The Times and its journalists,” New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said.
In vowing to appeal the ruling, Parnell said the department had reinstated the security credentials for the journalists identified in Friedman’s order and issued a “materially revised policy that addressed every concern” outlined by the court, he wrote on X.
“The Department remains committed to press access at the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation,” he said.
What are press freedom advocates saying?
Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Friedman “rightly found that the Pentagon’s policies still violate the Constitution and that the government’s evasion of his clear directive cannot continue.”
The Freedom of the Press Foundation welcomed Friedman’s ruling but called for him to take further action, saying on April 9 that “at this point, any court order that responds to the administration’s blatant lawlessness with anything less than sanctions, contempt of court findings and attorney disciplinary referrals is a disappointment.”
“The administration will likely play more games to avoid complying with today’s order as well,” the organization said. “Hopefully, Judge Friedman will rise to the moment.”
Contributing: Michael Loria, USA TODAY
BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.