![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/86721898007-20251016-vpc-reporters-leave-the-pentagon-over-press-restrictions-thumb-00-00-01-12-stil.webp\"\/)
![\"play\"](\"https:\/\/www.gannett-cdn.com\/appservices\/universal-web\/universal\/icons\/icon-play-alt-white.svg\"){kind=icon}
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Journalists vacate Pentagon as new press policy takes effect<\/p>\n
More than 30 news outlets declined to sign the new press policy. Many of them packed up their offices.<\/p>\n
The battle over press access to the Pentagon and the First Amendment fallout over new restrictions on journalists continues to play out in court.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman\u00a0concluded in\u00a0an\u00a0April 9 ruling that the Department of War, formally known as the Department of Defense, had failed to\u00a0comply with\u00a0his March order<\/a> in the New York Times’ lawsuit over the matter, which\u00a0blocked the department from implementing\u00a0a\u00a0restrictive press policy first introduced in 2025.<\/p>\n The Pentagon responded by\u00a0issuing a revised policy<\/a>\u00a0that\u00a0closed the “Correspondents\u2019 Corridor,”\u00a0a\u00a0longtime workspace for journalists in the Pentagon, and required them to have escorts into the building.<\/p>\n But that policy, according to Friedman,\u00a0“invoked slightly different language to achieve that same unconstitutional result.”<\/p>\n The Pentagon cannot “take steps to circumvent the Court\u2019s injunction and expect the Court to turn a blind eye,”\u00a0he wrote.<\/p>\n “This ruling powerfully vindicates both the Court\u2019s authority and the First Amendment\u2019s protections of independent journalism,” said\u00a0Theodore J.\u00a0Boutrous\u00a0Jr.<\/a>, a\u00a0partner at Gibson Dunn,\u00a0the law firm that is representing the New York Times in the case.<\/p>\n Pentagon\u00a0spokesperson\u00a0Sean Parnell<\/a>\u00a0said the\u00a0department\u00a0would appeal the ruling,\u00a0maintaining\u00a0that it “has at all times complied with the Court\u2019s Order.”<\/p>\n Here\u2019s\u00a0what to know about the case and its latest developments:<\/p>\n What\u2019s\u00a0the background of the case?<\/p>\n A\u00a0press policy that went into effect<\/a>\u00a0in 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<\/a> described the matter as a national security issue.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>\u00a0along with non-traditional media outlets.<\/p>\n The\u00a0New York Times sued the Pentagon<\/a>\u00a0over the policy in December, calling it “exactly the type of speech- and press-restrictive scheme that the\u00a0Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0and D.C. Circuit have recognized violates the First Amendment.”<\/p>\n In his March ruling, Friedman\u00a0acknowledged 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\u00a0Donald Trump<\/a>‘s recent “incursion” into\u00a0Venezuela<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0war with Iran<\/a>.<\/p>\n That prompted the Pentagon to issue the revised policy that required journalists to be escorted in the building and shuttered the “Correspondents’ Corridor.”<\/p>\n “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.<\/p>\n Parnell said the policy reflected the department’s commitments to both transparency and national security.<\/p>\n The New York Times\u00a0alleged that\u00a0the new policy\u00a0violated Friedman\u2019s order<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0subsequent\u00a0legal filing.<\/p>\n What did the judge just rule?<\/p>\n Friedman\u00a0concurred in his April 9 opinion.\u00a0He had\u00a0“no choice but to conclude,”\u00a0he wrote,\u00a0that the department’s decision to close the\u00a0“Correspondents\u2019 Corridor”\u00a0and 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\u2019s Order.”<\/p>\n Friedman concluded the\u00a020-page\u00a0opinion by\u00a0declaring that “what this case is really about” is Hegseth\u2019s 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.”<\/p>\n “The Constitution demands better,” he wrote. “The American public demands better, too.”<\/p>\n He ordered the Pentagon to file a status report by April 16 outlining the steps it took to comply with the ruling.<\/p>\n How did the New York Times and the Pentagon respond?<\/p>\n The\u00a0New York Times\u00a0said Friedman\u2019s ruling “sends a clear message to the Pentagon” about its need to\u00a0comply with\u00a0the court\u2019s order in\u00a0an April 9 X post<\/a>.<\/p>\n “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<\/a> said.<\/p>\n 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\u00a0addressed\u00a0every concern” outlined by the court, he\u00a0wrote on X<\/a>.<\/p>\n “The Department remains committed to press access\u00a0at\u00a0the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation,” he said.<\/p>\n