Filed Date: May 18, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding in progress
(This summary is temporary while we research the case further). Filed on May 18, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, this lawsuit was brought by The New York Times Company and a national security reporter against the Department of Defense (DOD), the Secretary of Defense, the Chief Pentagon Spokesman and the Special Advisor. The complaint alleged that, beginning in early 2025, the DOD took escalating steps to restrict press access to the Pentagon, driven by hostility to unfavorable reporting, with officials publicly condemning news organizations' coverage as "garbage," "fake narratives," and "lies." On October 6, 2025, the DOD issued a new credentialing policy—the "October Policy"—that plaintiffs alleged granted officials unbridled discretion to revoke reporters' Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials (PFACs) based on lawful newsgathering activities; after the vast majority of the press corps refused to sign the required acknowledgment, the DOD selectively issued new credentials to pro-Trump media outlets, praising them as "willing to serve" while condemning excluded journalists as "propagandists." On March 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and ordered reinstatement of their PFACs, finding the October Policy was viewpoint discriminatory; however, just one business day later, defendants issued an "Interim Policy" that closed the dedicated press workspace, imposed a requirement that PFAC holders be escorted at all times, and revived restrictions on newsgathering activities. Judge Friedman subsequently found the Interim Policy violated his prior order and enjoined its enforcement, but a divided D.C. Circuit panel granted a limited stay permitting the escort requirement to remain in force pending appeal. Plaintiffs asserted four claims—First Amendment viewpoint discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, Fifth Amendment due process, and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—and sought declaratory relief, vacatur, injunctive relief, and restoration of press access equivalent to that which existed prior to the imposition of the challenged policies.
Summary Authors
Madeline Dollard (6/30/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73355736/parties/new-york-times-company-v-department-of-defense/
Friedman, Paul L. (District of Columbia)
Boutrous, Theodore J. (District of Columbia)
Townsend, KatieLynn Boyd (District of Columbia)
Bruns, Michael Benjamin (District of Columbia)
Powers, James R. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73355736/new-york-times-company-v-department-of-defense/
Last updated July 23, 2026, 10:42 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 18, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The New York Times Company ("The Times") and a national security reporter.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of Defense (DOD)
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-01690
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26:26-cv-05253
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Case Summary of New York Times v. Department of Defense, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48263/ (last updated 6/30/2026).