The New York Times filed a second lawsuit against the Defense Department on Monday, challenging a requirement that journalists be escorted while on Pentagon grounds. According to reports from The Associated Press, the paper argues this policy violates the First Amendment and represents an unconstitutional attempt to prevent independent reporting on military affairs. A Times spokesman stated that Americans deserve visibility into how their government operates, particularly the military actions taken in their name and with their tax dollars. Charlie Stadtlander, a Times spokesman, emphasized that the escort policy is 'an unconstitutional attempt by the Pentagon to prevent independent reporting on military affairs'.
The latest lawsuit follows significant developments in the ongoing legal battle, with a federal judge previously blocking the escort provision but a D.C. Circuit panel granting an emergency stay to revive it. As reported by CNBC, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on April 27 to allow the escort provision to survive as the U.S. Department of Defense's full appeal moves forward. The Times argues that the Pentagon 'adopted the interim policy one business day after — and in direct response to — a court order that vacated and enjoined provisions of a prior Pentagon press credentialing policy as unconstitutional'. The case has yet to be randomly assigned to a judge, with the D.C. Circuit ruling that the Pentagon was likely to succeed on the merits that the escort requirement was not properly before the original judge.
In the new filing, the Times contends that the escort rule, like other Pentagon media restrictions, aims to close the Pentagon to any journalist or news organization unwilling to report only what department officials approve. According to the Times filing reported by CNBC, this represents a patently unconstitutional approach. The paper argues that the policy violates the Constitution's freedom of speech and due process provisions, seeking direct court intervention to address the constitutional grounds of the escort requirement. The Times lawsuit specifically challenges the interim policy that the Pentagon hastily implemented after Judge Friedman's original ruling in favor of the paper, arguing it 'employes additional means of carrying forward the same impermissible, viewpoint-discriminatory aim that has motivated defendants from the beginning: closing the Pentagon to any journalist or news organization unwilling to report only what department officials approve'.
Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell called the Times' latest lawsuit an attempt to remove barriers to accessing classified information. As reported by CNBC, Parnell asserted that the Times and its journalists want to roam the Pentagon freely without escorts, a privilege they don't have in any other federal building. He emphasized that the department's policy is completely lawful and narrowly designed to protect national security information from unlawful criminal disclosure. Parnell stated that the department's policy is 'completely lawful and narrowly designed to protect national security information from unlawful criminal disclosure'.
The current lawsuit, filed by the Times and reporter Julian E. Barnes in District of Columbia district court, represents another escalation in tensions between the U.S. media and the second Trump administration. According to CNBC, the policy remains in place after an appeals court stayed part of Judge Friedman's ruling while the government appeals. The Times continues to cover the U.S. military from outside the building, while a new press corps approved by the department currently occupies Pentagon space. The appeals process is ongoing, with the Times seeking to get the courts to directly address the escort rule on constitutional grounds. Under the interim policy, credentialed journalists can only enter the Pentagon if they are invited to a press conference or secure a prearranged interview or meeting, both requiring an escort within the building.
