The New York Times has filed a second lawsuit against the Pentagon, arguing that a policy requiring journalists to be escorted by officials while on its grounds is unconstitutional. The suit, lodged in the US district court in Washington on Monday, challenges an interim policy introduced in the spring that the newspaper described as imposing 'utterly unreasonable' restrictions on coverage of the Department of Defense.
The complaint, brought on behalf of the Times and reporter Julian E Barnes, names the Department of Defense, Secretary Pete Hegseth, chief spokesperson Sean Parnell and special adviser Timothy Parlatore as defendants. It argues that for decades, reporters were allowed unescorted access to unsecured corridors, enabling them to move between public affairs offices and ask questions on short notice. Under the new rules, journalists must book appointments, wait for responses, and be escorted for each interaction, a process the Times says forces them to 'forgo conversations or else spend hours chasing schedulers by phone and shuttling in and out of the building'.
In response, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell dismissed the lawsuit on social media as 'nothing more than an attempt to remove the barriers to them getting their hands on classified information'. He said the policy was 'completely lawful and narrowly designed to protect national security information from unlawful criminal disclosure'. The Times countered that without meaningful access, reporters and news organisations are 'deprived of unique, newsworthy information that can only be obtained in person and through such exchanges'.
The newspaper stressed the urgency of independent reporting in light of recent events, including the capture of Venezuela's president, the Iran war and Secretary Hegseth's dismissal of multiple senior military officials. The lawsuit asks the court to force the Pentagon to lift the escort requirement.
This is the second legal action over press access. In December, the Times sued over rules requiring reporters to sign a form restricting the solicitation of information, prompting many major outlets to surrender their credentials in protest. A federal judge ruled key parts of that policy unconstitutional in March, but the Pentagon then closed a designated press workspace and issued the interim escort rule. In April, a judge said the interim policy violated his earlier order, but an appeals court allowed it to remain in force while the appeal proceeds. The Times now argues the interim policy is 'patently retaliatory, utterly unreasonable, and manifestly arbitrary and capricious'.
