Ted Boutrous

The Pentagon issued a revised policy for credentialing media after a judge struck down its previous rules that determined access to the building. But a spokesperson for The New York Times, which sued the Pentagon, said the new policy does not comply with the judge’s order, and the newspaper filed a new motion to compel the Defense Department to do so. @ElizLanders has more.

The Pentagon issued a revised policy for credentialing media after a judge struck down the Defense Department’s previous rules determining access to its headquarters. The New York Times, which sued the Defense Department, said the new policy does not comply with the judge’s order and filed a new motion to compel the Pentagon to do so. Last year, the vast majority of reporters who cover the Pentagon walked out en masse after refusing to agree to new Trump administration rules for credentialing reporters. Those rules said soliciting information from Defense Department employees could be a violation of the law. The Times filed an initial lawsuit in December challenging these restrictions. @ElizLanders spoke with the newspaper's lead attorney, Ted Boutrous.

New York Times Says Pentagon Is "Defying" Court Order In Press Rules deadline.com/2026/03/new-yo…

NYT statement after filing motion to compel compliance against the Pentagon

>> @BoutrousTed, who is representing the NYT in Times v. Defense Department, says the NYT has filed a motion to compel compliance with the court's order from last Friday: "Friday’s order from the district court was a powerful rejection of the Department’s attempt to control which journalists could be in the Pentagon and what they can report. Instead of complying with that order, the Department is defying it by doubling down on the policy’s unconstitutional restrictions on newsgathering and adding new restrictions in retaliation for the Times’s efforts to protect its First Amendment rights.  In our motion filed today, we are asking the Court to enforce Friday’s order and prohibit this unlawful conduct by the government."

Statement from attorney @BoutrousTed, representing the Times

The 2026 Lawdragon 100 Leading AI & Legal Tech Advisors | Lawdragon lawdragon.com/guides/2026-03…

Breaking News: The Pentagon’s restrictions on news outlets violated the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled, in a victory for The New York Times. nyti.ms/4smNxY1

A judge has ruled that a Pentagon policy limiting independent press access is unlawful, dealing a major blow to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's push for tighter media control. cnn.it/47bfDNz

My story: washingtonpost.com/business/2026/…

Strong statement from Judge Friedman:

BREAKING: A federal judge ruled in favor of the New York Times, finding that the Pentagon's press policy violated its First and Fifth Amendment rights, and that of reporter Julian E. Barnes:

This is a big win for the press, the public and the United States military, which fights better when observed by a robust press corps.

The ruling uses multiple DoD officials’ statements against them. “The record evidence supports the conclusion that the Policy discriminates not based on political viewpoint but rather based on editorial viewpoint—that is, whether the individual or organization is willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by Department leadership. See, e.g., (Ms. Wilson praising the new PFAC holders for being “on board and willing to serve our commander in chief”). As counsel for the plaintiffs put it at oral argument, the difference between the prior and current PFAC holders is their viewpoint on “the nature of the role of the journalists covering the Pentagon.” OA Tr. at 16-17. In sum, the undisputed evidence reflects the Policy’s true purpose and practical effect: to weed out disfavored journalists—those who were not, in the Department’s view, “on board and willing to serve,” SUMF at 16 (¶ 91)—and replace them with news entities that are. That is viewpoint discrimination, full stop.”

Judge sides with NYT against policy limiting reporters’ Pentagon access | AP News apnews.com/article/pentag…

A victory for the First Amendment! The court affirmed that the Pentagon's policy cannot be squared with the Constitution. Thank you @rcfp @katie_townsend @BoutrousTed

Statement from attorney @BoutrousTed, who represented the New York Times in press policy case against the Defense Department “The district court’s decision is a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war.” “As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause, but also the founding principle that the nation’s security depends upon a free press. The district court’s opinion is not just a win for The Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon.” thewrap.com/industry-news/…

"The district court’s decision is a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war," @BoutrousTed, who is representing the NYT in the case, tells me

"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause, but also the founding principle that the nation’s security depends upon a free press," @BoutrousTed says. "The district court’s opinion is not just a win for The Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."