WASHINGTON - The New York Times filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the Department of Defense and Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging a new media credentialing policy violates the Constitution by restricting how journalists gather news at the Pentagon.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to block enforcement of rules implemented Oct. 6 regarding Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials, known as PFACs. The newspaper and national security reporter Julian E. Barnes argues the policy grants officials "unbridled discretion" to suspend or revoke press passes if they believe a reporter poses a security risk.

According to the filing, the new guidelines allow the department to strip credentials from journalists who solicit or receive "unauthorized" information, even if that information is unclassified. The policy states that a determination of risk can be based on "unprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations" or attempts to obtain non-public information.

A key component of the lawsuit challenges the department's demand that journalists sign a formal "Acknowledgement" of the new rules to maintain their credentials, arguing this creates an "unconstitutional condition" on their work.

Attorneys for The Times argue the government cannot deny a benefit—in this case, building access—based on criteria that infringe on constitutionally protected speech, even if the journalists have no inherent entitlement to that access. The filing contends that forcing reporters to attest to their "understanding" of the policy effectively coerces them into agreeing to vague standards and legal misstatements that contradict their First Amendment rights.

"Even if the government may constitutionally impose content-neutral prohibitions on a particular manner of speech, it may not condition that speech on obtaining a license or permit from a government official in that official's boundless discretion," the complaint states.

The lawsuit argues that the loss of physical access inflicts "irreparable harm" by cutting off the "routine unplanned interactions" that often yield significant news.

Without building passes, the complaint states reporters cannot "judge the demeanor" of officials in real-time, ask immediate follow-up questions, or gauge the "mood and atmosphere" during military crises. Attorneys for The Times emphasized that remote communication is an insufficient substitute for face-to-face reporting, noting that "one cannot transcribe an anguished look or a nervous tic".

The filing asserts that the policy forces journalists to self-censor, weighing the risk of suspension against the public interest in reporting.

Reporters from several major news organizations, including The Times, refused to sign the acknowledgment by an October deadline. Consequently, they were compelled to turn in their badges on Oct. 15, losing independent access to the building.

The complaint alleges the department has since replaced established journalists with a "next generation" of media figures who support the administration. According to the lawsuit, the department has granted credentials to individuals and outlets that officials described as free from a "biased agenda," including:

The lawsuit names the Department of Defense, also identified in the suit as the "Department of War," Hegseth and Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell as defendants.

The Times is asking the court to declare the policy unlawful, reinstate the press credentials for Barnes and other staff, and permanently enjoin the department from enforcing the disputed provisions