/
Pentagon will remove media offices after judge reinstates New York Times press credentials

Pentagon will remove media offices after judge reinstates New York Times press credentials


Pentagon will remove media offices after judge reinstates New York Times press credentials

The U.S. Defense Department will remove media offices from the Pentagon after a federal judge sided with The New York Times in a lawsuit challenging limits on reporters’ access to the building, a department official announced Monday.

An area of the Pentagon known as "Correspondents’ Corridor" that reporters have used for decades to cover the U.S. military will close immediately, department spokesperson Sean Parnell said. Journalists will eventually be able to work from an “annex” outside the building, which he said “will be available when ready." He offered no detail about how long that will take.

The Pentagon Press Association said the announcement “is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of last week’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 association said.

The new policy is the latest dispute over press access to President Donald Trump’s administration, which has limited legacy media while boosting conservative and pro-Trump outlets.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the agency's new credentialing policy violated journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. Dozens of reporters had walked out of the building rather than agree to government-imposed restrictions on their work.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., last week sided with the newspaper. He ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists and struck down some of the agency's restrictions on news reporting.

Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows that the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination.