Lawyers for The New York Times told a federal judge in Washington on Monday that the Pentagon has effectively sidestepped his March 20 order, rolling out a revised "interim" press policy that, in practice, leaves restored press passes all but useless. The Times asked the court to force the Defense Department to comply after reporters whose Pentagon credentials were revoked received new cards that, the paper says, do not allow ordinary entry to the building. Judge Paul Friedman heard arguments but did not rule from the bench.
In a motion to compel filed Monday, Times attorneys called the Interim Policy an "attempted end-run" around the court's order and accused the department of "contemptuously defying" the ruling by imposing escort requirements, limiting when reporters may promise confidentiality and moving the press workspace outside the main building, according to CourtListener. The filing asks the judge to compel immediate compliance and to clarify that his March 20 decision applies to all credentialed reporters, not just the seven Times journalists at the center of the case.
Julian Barnes, a Times national security reporter, told the court that when he and colleagues picked up their reinstated Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials, they were told the new cards would not open the building turnstiles and that reporters would need escorts to move inside the Pentagon. During Monday's hearing, Judge Friedman reacted to that description with a pointed series of questions: "How weird is that? Is it Catch-22? Is it Kafka?," as reported by The Associated Press.
How the interim policy works
Barnes' sworn declaration describes a dramatically scaled-back press footprint: the Correspondents' Corridor has been closed, signage torn down and press desks removed. Reporters were told the PFACs now grant access only to a press area in the Pentagon library, reachable by a corridor or shuttle that reporters were initially not permitted to use. That account appears in the Times' supplemental declaration filed with the court and outlines why the paper argues the new rules render the reinstated badges essentially meaningless, according to CourtListener.
Pentagon response
Government lawyers pushed back, telling the court the revised rules include several "safe harbors" meant to protect routine newsgathering and insisting the department has complied with the March 20 order. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the department disagreed with the ruling and would appeal, the Washington Post reports.
Why this matters
Friedman's March 20 decision vacated key parts of the credential policy and ordered the reinstatement of seven Times reporters' PFACs, finding that the rules threatened journalists' First and Fifth Amendment rights. The dispute over whether the department has actually complied has drawn criticism from press-freedom groups and underscores how quickly access to national security institutions can be curtailed, CBS News reports.
Next steps
The Times has asked Friedman to compel immediate compliance and to spell out that his order covers all credentialed reporters. The judge declined to issue a bench ruling, and the matter will return to his docket. With the department planning an appeal and the Times pressing its motion to compel, the legal fight over Pentagon press access could stretch on for weeks or months, according to reporting by The Associated Press.
