A federal judge appeared skeptical of the Pentagon's new press access restrictions during a hearing on Friday, in the New York Times lawsuit challenging the policy as a violation of the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., heard arguments from the Times and the Department of Defense. The judge questioned the government's defense sharply, particularly on First Amendment implications, and indicated he may rule soon given the case's significance amid ongoing U.S. military operations (including the war with Iran).
No final decision has been issued yet, but a ruling is expected in the coming weeks.
The New York Times, along with reporter Julian Barnes, sued the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and chief spokesman Sean Parnell in December 2025. The suit claims the Defense Department's October 2025 policy on Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials (PFACs/press badges) is unconstitutional.
Most major news outlets, including the Times, refused to comply and surrendered their badges in October 2025, leading to limited physical access to the Pentagon building. The policy was defended by the Pentagon as necessary to prevent leaks and protect national security.
The case advanced quickly on a fast-track schedule, skipping discovery, with both sides filing for summary judgment. Amicus briefs supporting the Times came from groups like the ACLU, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, arguing the rules threaten core press freedoms and enable viewpoint discrimination.
The lawsuit remains ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with no resolution. It highlights broader tensions over press access and government transparency during wartime.