A federal judge on Friday struck down key parts of a Pentagon press policy challenged by The New York Times, ruling that the disputed provisions violated constitutional protections for reporters seeking access to cover the U.S. military from inside the Pentagon.
Senior U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the government’s cross-motion, according to the court’s opinion. The case centered on Pentagon Facilities Alternate Credentials, known as PFACs, which journalists use to enter the building for reporting access.
The opinion says The Times and reporter Julian E. Barnes sued the Defense Department, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell over provisions in the policy. They argued the measures violated rights protected by the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
Friedman wrote that a central purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the right of the press to publish freely and the public to receive information without official interference. He said that principle has long been tied to the country’s security and should not be set aside.
At the same time, the judge acknowledged that the government has a duty to protect national security, troops and war plans. But he wrote that public access to information remains especially important, particularly in light of what he described in the opinion as the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran.
According to the ruling, Barnes had held a PFAC almost continuously since 2004, and six other Times reporters also held the credentials for much of 2025. The opinion says that access allowed journalists to attend briefings, ask follow-up questions and report more fully on Pentagon activity.
Friedman also wrote that Pentagon officials had not historically responded to unfavorable coverage by suspending, revoking or refusing to renew a reporter’s credentials. The court said the challenged policy departed from that practice.
The opinion says a separate order consistent with the ruling would be issued the same day. The decision blocks the challenged portions of the policy and marks a major court rebuke of the restrictions at the center of the case.
A global media for the latest news, entertainment, music fashion, and more.
