The Times lawsuit is another salvo in what has become an escalating tension between the U.S. media and the second Trump administration, which has played out both in the public arena and at times in the courts. The paper said it had filed the additional lawsuit after first suing the Pentagon in December over new rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, to challenge an interim policy “that the Pentagon hastily put into place after a federal judge ruled in The Times’s favor in its
original lawsuit.” The new policy included a requirement that journalists be accompanied by escorts at all times while in the Pentagon. The policy was implemented in March following a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman that had struck down earlier restrictions on media access, saying they violated the rights of Times reporter Julian E. Barnes and the paper. The following month, the judge ruled that the interim policy violated his March order. But the escort policy remained in place when an appeals
court stayed part of Friedman’s ruling while the government appeals. The appeals process is ongoing. The new lawsuit, filed by the paper and reporter Barnes in the District of Columbia district court, aims to get the courts to directly address the escort rule on constitutional grounds.
New York Times, Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, Julian E. Barnes, media restrictions, escort rule, Paul L. Friedman, appeal, District of Columbia district court
Why do they need escorts at all times? That’s just ridiculous.
So is this like the Pentagon trying to hide stuff again or what? I don’t even keep up with the court dates but it feels like they’re just making journalists babysat.
Wait, I thought the judge already said no escorts, so why are they still doing it in March/April/whatever. Sounds like the courts keep talking but the rules never really stop. Also Pete Hegseth sounds like he’s in the middle of everything (like always).
“Escort rule” makes it sound like they’re treating the media like prisoners, like they can’t be trusted to walk around. But then again if there’s sensitive stuff in the Pentagon… shouldn’t there be *some* limits? Idk, the article mentions appeals court stays and interim policy and I’m just lost. Feels political either way, because it’s NYT vs Pentagon, like that’s the whole game.