Pentagon correspondents push back on ‘unconstitutional’ press restrictions

Journalists who cover the Pentagon are pushing back against a new press access arrangement hastily announced by the Pentagon, calling it “an end run” around a federal judge’s ruling to restore their access.

Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, announced on Monday night that the department would permanently close a designated work space for journalists known as “correspondents’ corridor” and create a “new and improved press workspace” in an annex facility outside the building.

Parnell’s statement came in response to an adverse ruling on Friday from a federal judge who, as part of a lawsuit filed by the New York Times over a new set of restrictions imposed last fall by the Pentagon, voided many of the new rules and ordered the administration to return the passes of the Times’ journalists.

“The new policy does not comply with the judge’s order,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the Times, in a statement on Monday night. “It continues to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the press. We will be going back to court.”

The new policy announced by Parnell also requires journalists to be escorted by defense department personnel after entering the Pentagon. Parnell attributed the restrictions to security concerns, saying that “the Department determined that unescorted access to the Pentagon cannot be responsibly maintained without the ability to screen credential holders for security risks”. (Several journalists have pointed out that a security screening was always part of the process to receive a press credential.)

The deputy national security editor for the Washington Post, Andrew deGrandpré, called it an attempted “end run around federal judge’s ruling” in a post on X.

The Pentagon Press Association, which represents journalists who cover the defense department (which Trump has attempted to rename the Department of War), strongly rebuked Parnell’s announcement, which it called “a clear violation of the letter and spirit of last week’s ruling by a US federal court”. The organization said it was consulting with legal counsel on next steps.

The PPA noted that the judge in the case, Paul L Friedman, had written that press access was particularly important considering the US intervention into Iran. “The court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected,” Friedman wrote. “But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing.”

Parnell has said the Pentagon plans to appeal the judge’s ruling.

“At such a critical time, we ask why the Pentagon is choosing to restrict vital press freedoms that help inform all Americans,” the PPA said in its statement.

While the lawsuit was filed and litigated by the Times, many other news organizations felt that the ruling should also open the door for them to regain access to the building. Dozens of news organizations including the Guardian opted last October to give back their press passes rather than sign on to a new policy that included strict rules on the “solicitation” of information from defense employees, with vague language guiding how exactly reporters would be able to get the material they needed to do their jobs.

“Reuters was gratified to see the court’s ruling Friday and is seeking reinstatement of credentials for its journalists, who have continued to cover the Pentagon throughout this situation,” a spokesperson for the news wire said on Friday. A spokesperson for the Associated Press also said that the organization “requested reinstatement of our credentials so we can regularly report from the Pentagon again on the public’s behalf”.

CNN was among the networks who said it would seek to regain press access. In that vein, one CNN journalist went to the Pentagon on Monday hoping to regain their press credential but was not given firm guidance, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

Now it seems likely that Judge Friedman will have to weigh in on whether the new policies announced by Parnell are in line with his ruling last Friday.

“It will be up to the courts to decide if this latest policy complies with what the judge ordered,” Barbara Starr, a former CNN Pentagon correspondent, told the Guardian. “But the fact is that all reporters undergo an FBI background check as a condition of receiving a press credential. So [the defense department] in fact retains authority to revoke it if there is a reason beyond that [Secretary Pete Hegseth] just doesn’t like the coverage.”

Starr also lamented the loss of “correspondents’ corridor” and the close physical access it provided for journalists to quickly get updates from military officials on breaking developments. “Working from a remote building outside the Pentagon does not provide that,” she said. (While the press room will not be in the Pentagon building, Parnell said it would still be “on Pentagon grounds”.)

Although the vast majority of journalists for large news organizations no longer have guaranteed access to the Pentagon, many have been let back in to attend press briefings about Iran conducted by Hegseth, though they have been relegated to the back of the briefing room. Instead, the vast majority of questions have been asked by a group of conservative journalists and pro-Maga influencers, some of whom have asked substantive questions about American strategy in Iran and the timeline of the war.