On December 4, 2025, The New York Times launched a legal battle against the Pentagon, filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The suit challenges a controversial new set of media rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that, according to the Times and a broad swath of media and press freedom advocates, threaten the very core of First Amendment protections for journalists covering the U.S. military.
The crux of the dispute? In October, the Pentagon rolled out a 21-page agreement that all reporters seeking Pentagon access were told to sign. The policy, unveiled in September and formally announced by Hegseth, requires media outlets to pledge not to gather or report any information—classified or unclassified—unless it’s been expressly authorized by Defense Department officials. In effect, the rules ban credentialed journalists from publishing even declassified material or off-the-record conversations unless the Pentagon gives the green light.
The rules proved too much for many veteran journalists. Outlets such as The New York Times, NPR, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News—along with six Times reporters—handed in their Pentagon access badges in protest. On October 15, 2025, members of the Pentagon press corps staged a dramatic walkout, turning in their credentials and leaving the building as a group, a moment captured in a striking photograph by Kevin Wolf for the Associated Press and widely shared by NPR.
According to The New York Times, the Pentagon’s policy is an attempt to “exert control over reporting the government dislikes,” violating constitutional rights to free speech and due process. Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander stated, “The policy is an attempt to exert control over reporting the government dislikes, in violation of a free press’ right to seek information under their First and Fifth Amendment rights protected by the Constitution.” The Times’ legal brief further argues, “It is exactly the type of speech and press-restrictive scheme that the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have recognized violates the First Amendment.”
The lawsuit names the Defense Department, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell as defendants. In response, Parnell acknowledged awareness of the suit, saying, “We are aware of the New York Times lawsuit and look forward to addressing these arguments in court.” The Pentagon has defended the new rules as “common sense,” claiming they are necessary to prevent leaks that could damage operational and national security. “It’s common sense,” Pentagon officials have insisted, emphasizing that the policy is not an attempt to target any particular news outlet.
But many in the media and press freedom community see things differently. The Pentagon Press Association, which represents journalists covering the agency, voiced strong support for the Times’ legal challenge, calling the restrictions “antithetical to a free and independent press and prohibited by the First Amendment.” The White House Correspondents’ Association also stood firmly with the Times, declaring, “The Times’ lawsuit is a necessary and vital step to ensure journalists can do their jobs.”
Other major outlets have echoed these concerns. In a statement, CNN said, “The Pentagon has asked news organizations to surrender their journalistic principles and First Amendment rights in exchange for access. CNN will not do this. As we have said, the newly implemented policy is without precedent and threatens core protections for independent journalism.” Even some conservative outlets, such as Fox News and Newsmax, joined the collective stand against the new restrictions in October, refusing to sign the department’s agreement.
Despite being barred from the Pentagon, many of these veteran journalists have continued to report aggressively on military affairs from outside its five walls. Their coverage has included stories questioning Hegseth’s role in military strikes on boats with alleged drug smugglers and breaking news on U.S. strikes in Iran and Venezuela that sometimes contradicted official Pentagon accounts. Notably, an inspector general recently found that Hegseth’s private Signal chats with senior government officials about pending U.S. airstrikes in Yemen could have placed American troops in harm’s way—revelations first reported by The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon press room has been transformed. On December 2, 2025, Hegseth’s team welcomed dozens of MAGA media influencers and commentators—many with little experience covering the military—for orientation sessions and press briefings. These content creators, who agreed to the new restrictions, have been billed by Hegseth’s communication team as the “new Pentagon press corps.” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson, who had not held a single on-camera briefing for the traditional press corps, cheerfully addressed the new arrivals, saying, “Legacy media chose to self-deport from this building. And if you look at the numbers, it’s pretty clear why no one followed them. National trust in these mainstream media outlets has cratered to 28 percent, the lowest ever recorded. The American people don’t trust these propagandists because they stopped telling the truth.”
Other outlets, including The Associated Press, The Washington Post, and CNN, were denied access to Wilson’s December 2 briefing, having been told it was for credentialed press only. The Times is citing Wilson’s “propagandists” comment as evidence of viewpoint discrimination, a key argument in its legal filings. As Charles Stadtlander, the Times spokesperson, put it, “The policy is an attempt to exert control over reporting the government dislikes.”
Legal experts warn that the case carries high stakes. If the courts side with the Pentagon, it could set a precedent for similar restrictions at other federal agencies, further eroding press access and transparency. On the other hand, a victory for the Times could reaffirm the constitutional protections that have long allowed American journalists to hold power to account. The Times’ legal team, led by noted free-speech litigator Theodore J. Boutrous, is seeking a declaration that the Pentagon policy is unconstitutional on its face and an injunction barring its enforcement.
The lawsuit also draws on precedent from earlier Trump administration efforts to restrict press access—most notably, the revocation of press passes for then-Playboy reporter Brian Karem and CNN’s Jim Acosta, both of which were overturned by federal courts. The Times and its allies argue that the Pentagon’s new rules go even further, giving government officials unchecked power over who gets a credential and who doesn’t, with no path to appeal—a situation Gabe Rottman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press called “something the First Amendment prohibits.”
As the legal battle unfolds, the public is left to ponder a crucial question: Who gets to decide what information about America’s military actions reaches the people? For now, the Pentagon’s new rules have reshaped the press landscape, but the fight over press freedom and government accountability is far from over.
