Judge weighs New York Times bid to block policy limiting journalists' access to Pentagon

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Pentagon policy limiting journalists’ access to the building is depriving Americans of vital information about U.S. military operations while the country is at war, a New York Times attorney argued Friday in urging a judge to block the new rules.

“It’s more important than ever for the public to know as much as they can,” Times attorney Theodore Boutrous told U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman during the first hearing for the newspaper’s lawsuit against the Defense Department.

Friedman didn’t immediately rule on whether to order the Pentagon to reinstate press credentials for reporters who walked out of the building last October rather than agree to the new rules. But the judge’s remarks suggested he was skeptical of key arguments in the government’s defense of the policy.

Judge cites need for ‘a variety of views’

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, suggested it is “more important than ever” for Americans to hear “a variety of views” about the activities of the federal government and its elected leaders.

“A lot of things need to be held tightly and secure, but openness and transparency allows members of the public to know what their government is doing,” the judge said.

Justice Department attorney Michael Bruns said the credentialing policy reflects the government’s “compelling interest” and its “statutory obligation” to protect national security information.

“This is not a trivial exercise,” Bruns argued.

Friedman said he intends to issue “as prompt a decision as I can, because I know it’s important for lots of reasons.”

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

Times spokesperson Charles Stadtlander said the U.S. attacks on Iran — and the resulting deaths of American troops — “illuminate the public’s right to access deep, impartial reporting on the details of the military actions happening as we speak.”

“Today was an important opportunity for The New York Times’s lawyers to make our case for the clear importance and public service of allowing journalists to report fully on the Pentagon,” Stadtlander said in a statement.

The current Pentagon press corps comprises mostly conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including those from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military from outside the building.

The AP, meanwhile, is awaiting a decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals on its separate lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration. The AP contends that Trump’s team punished it by reducing its access to presidential events because the outlet hasn’t followed the president’s lead in renaming the Gulf of Mexico.

The Pentagon calls the policy ‘common sense’

The Pentagon has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government attorneys wrote.

Times attorneys claim the policy is designed to silence unfavorable press coverage of Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

The Times argues that the Pentagon has applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper said Trump ally Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who agreed to the Pentagon policy, appeared to violate its prohibition on soliciting unauthorized information by promoting her “tip line.”

The government didn’t object to Loomer’s “general tip line” but concluded that a Washington Post tip line does violate its policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.

“It’s mystifying,” Boutrous said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

The judge asked Bruns, the government attorney, what standards are used to decide if a reporter poses a security risk.

“Don’t there have to be some criteria that are applied in a uniform way?” Friedman asked.

Yes, Bruns answered. But he said the government has “far more leeway” to restrict speech in a secure forum like the Pentagon.

“The reason for the policy is the security of the Pentagon,” he added.

Yale Law School professor David Schulz, who represents the Pentagon Press Association, said the challenged policy represents a “stark break from the past.”

“The press has been in the building since the day it opened,” Schulz told the judge. “It has always been there.”

___

AP Media Writer David Bauder in New York contributed to this story.

Two days after dozens of journalists left their desks at the Pentagon behind rather than agree to government-imposed rules on how they report about the U.S. military, it’s apparent they haven’t stopped working.

Reporters have relied on sources to break and add nuance to stories about U.S. attacks in the Caribbean on boats suspected of being involved in the drug trade, as well as military leadership in the region.

This comes as many are still navigating how their jobs will change — where will they work? who will talk with them? — brought on by the dispute. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded reporters relinquish their Pentagon workspaces if they didn’t acknowledge rules the journalists say would punish them for reporting on anything beyond what he wants them to say.

The Pentagon has characterized the changes as “common sense” and accused journalists of mischaracterizing them.

“The self-righteous media chose to self-deport from the Pentagon,” Hegseth’s chief spokesman, Sean Parnell, said on social media. “That’s their right — but also their loss. They will not be missed.”

Breaking news on a U.S. attack with survivors

While most press may have departed the Pentagon, it was clear from stories that some sources were still talking.

Reuters broke news Thursday about the first U.S. attack on a boat in the Caribbean where some of the passengers survived. Reporter Phil Stewart, stationed at the Pentagon before leaving Wednesday, sourced it to a “U.S. official” who was not named. President Donald Trump confirmed the attack on Friday as more details emerged, including that two people were taken into U.S. custody.

The New York Times reported on the sudden retirement of U.S. Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, leader of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees operations in Central and South America, including use of the military in the administration’s drug-fighting efforts.

Times reporters Eric Schmitt, who covers national security, and Tyler Pager, based in the White House, quoted two unnamed officials saying that Holsey had expressed concerns about the mission and attacks on the boats. The reporters pointed out the unusual nature of a retirement one year into Holsey’s expected three-year command.

Both Hegseth and Holsey released social media statements late Thursday announcing the retirement, with neither addressing reasons for it. A Times spokesman would not comment about whether the newspaper had begun inquiring about Holsey before the retirement was publicly announced.

The Washington Post reported Friday that 15 people had signed the new press policy. They included reporters from conservative outlets the Federalist and the Epoch Times and two from One America News. The others were foreign outlets and freelancers, including six from Turkey. No legacy media outlets agreed.

The newspaper cited a “government document viewed by The Washington Post.” The story was written not by a Pentagon reporter, but by media writer Scott Nover.

One reporter says stories show there are reasons to be hopeful

News outlets that said this week they would leave the Pentagon rather than agree to Hegseth’s rules stressed that it would not stop them from reporting on the military.

“There are reasons to be hopeful that people can still deliver,” Nancy Youssef, a reporter for The Atlantic, said Friday. After leaving the Pentagon, she’s largely been working at The Atlantic’s Washington office about three miles away.

As much as the access issues raised by the Pentagon exit, reporters expressed concerns that it will make it easier for Hegseth and his team to avoid questions about their actions. For instance, Youssef said she had asked about what weapons had been used in an earlier boat attack, what the legal basis for the action was and the identities of those killed. She received no answer.

Youssef said she also wondered whether journalists who did not sign on to the Pentagon’s rules would be permitted to visit other military sites or be embedded to cover military operations. That remains unclear.

“If you’re in the Navy in charge of the carrier strike group, would you invite a journalist now?” she asked. “Practically speaking, are we allowed to go?”

Even before this past week, Hegseth had taken steps to ban reporters from accessing large parts of the Pentagon without a government escort. He and his team have held only a handful of briefings for journalists.

Two journalists who spoke on background because their outlets would not permit on-the-record interviews said they’re concerned about having fewer opportunities for face-to-face contact with people who work in the Pentagon. Hegseth had begun requiring reporters get an escort to visit press offices for the military’s individual branches, but there were still public information officials near where the reporters worked.

Many Pentagon reporters have developed sources in the building over the course of many years working there. It remains to be seen how many will still answer their calls. “Some people are going to be scared,” one reporter said. “I think that’s inevitable.”

Youssef, however, noted in an article for The Atlantic that mid-level service members had reached out to her, unsolicited, to promise they would keep providing journalists with information. They said they would be doing this not to disobey current leadership but to uphold constitutional values, she wrote.

___

David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social