xxxxx
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY ,
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018 ;
JULIAN E. BARNES
The New York Times Company
1627 I Street NW, Suite 700
Washington , DC 20006,
Plaintiffs
Washington , DC 20301 ;
PETE HEGSETH
in his official capacity as Secretary of
,
V.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE A/K/A
DEPARTMENT OF
1600 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301 ;
SEAN PARNELL
in his official capacity as ChiefPentagon
,
WAR,
,
Defense, 1600 Defense Pentagon,
,
Spokesman, 1600 Defense Pentagon ,
Washington , DC 20301 ,
Civil Case No. 25-4218
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Defendants .Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25
Page 2 of41
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs The New York Times Company ("The New York Times” or the “The
Times") and its reporter Julian E. Barnes (“Barnes”) bring this action to enjoin provisions of a
recently implemented policy of the United States Department of Defense or Department of War
("Department” or “Pentagon”) that violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights. If allowed to
stand, that policy will upend the longstanding and “healthy adversarial tension between the
government, which may seek to keep its secrets” and “the press, which may endeavorto" report
them, Alexander Bickel, The Morality ofConsent at 79 (1977), and will deprive the public ofvital
information about the United States military and its leadership.
2. On October 6, 2025, the Department promulgated a new policy pertaining to
PFACS Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials. PFACS (also called Pentagon badges or
building passes) are credentials members ofthe press receive to access the Pentagon. The Times'
and its reporters' interests in maintaining their PFACs are exactly the type of “liberty interests"
the D.C. Circuit has held “may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth
amendment.
" Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2020). And the policy-which vests
Department officials with unbridled discretion to immediately suspend and ultimately revoke a
reporter's PFAC for engaging in lawful newsgathering, both on and off Pentagon grounds, or for
reporting any information Department officials have not approved is neither reasonable nor
viewpoint-neutral. It is exactly the type of speech- and press-restrictive scheme that the Supreme
Court and D.C. Circuit have recognized violates the First Amendment. See City ofLakewoodv.
Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757 (1988); Ateba v. Leavitt, 133 F.4th 114, 124–125
(D.C. Cir. 2025); see also Minnesota VotersAlliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. 1 , 11–12 ( 2018).
1Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 41
3. The policy, in violation of the First Amendment, seeks to restrict journalists'ability
to do what journalists have always done— ask questions of government employees and gather
information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements. If and when
they do and then publish anything that has not been approved by Pentagon officials, the policy
permits those officials to, at any time and without any standards to guide their decisions,
immediately suspend and ultimately revoke those journalists' PFACs in violation of the First
Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and binding D.C. Circuit precedent.
4. Specifically, the policy confers on Pentagon officials the unfettered discretion to
determine that ajournalist “pose[s] a security or safety risk to [Department] personnel or property,
"
see Ex. A (hereinafter the “ Policy”) at 8 , 12, based solely on a journalist's or news organization's
receipt, publication, or “solicitation” of any “unauthorized” information, regardless of secrecy
classification, id. at 12–13. It then provides that such a determination “may result in an immediate
suspension of Pentagon access "
Id. at 8, 12. The Policy also allows the Department to
suspend or revoke PFACs when Pentagon officials— again exercising standardless discretion?
determine journalists have engaged in “[u]nprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt
Pentagon operations.
" Id. at 15; see Karem, 960 F.3d at 666.
5. The Pentagon has made clear that lawful, routine newsgathering techniques—
asking questions of government employees and interviewing them for stories—whether on or off
Pentagon grounds could, in the Department's view,
“constitute a solicitation that could lead to
revocation "oftheir PFACs. Ex. A at 11. But such communications are a core journalistic practice
and a public good—the kind of basic source work that led to some of the most important news
stories in history, including the Pentagon Papers. In addition, the Department has made clear,
those journalistic practices that can be sanctioned also include, for example,
"public
2Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page4 of 41
advertisements or calls for tips,
" including via “ social media.
” Id. at 10. Providing a means for
sources to convey information is, likewise, routine. The Times, for instance, has a “tips page” on
its website that “ offer[s] several ways to get in touch with and provide materials to [Times]
journalists.
" 1
6. Through the Policy, Pentagon officials have dealt to themselves the power to
suspend and eventually revoke journalists' PFACs for publishing stories that Pentagon leadership
may perceive as unfavorable or unflattering, in direct contravention of Supreme Court precedent.
7. In issuing the Policy, the Department insisted that journalists sign an
"Acknowledgment,
” Ex. A. at 12 , acceding to their “understand[ ing]” of the Policy in order to
maintain their PFACs. Reporters from every major news organization, including The Times,
refused to comply with that demand as a condition to access the Pentagon,
² and were compelled
to turn in their PFACsas a result.³
8. While Plaintiffs and many other journalists and news organizations no longer
possess PFACs because they refused to accede to a Policy that would restrict independent
1 See https://www.nytimes.com/tips.
2 Erik Wemple, SeveralNews Outlets Reject Pentagon's Reporting Restrictions, N.Y. Times
(Oct. 13, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/13/business/pentagon-restrictions-news-
outlets.html ("Several news organizations, including The Washington Post, The New York
Times, Newsmax and NPR, have announced that their journalists will not sign a new setof
Pentagon restrictions affecting news gathering in the vast military complex. .... Other news
outlets, including The Guardian and CNN, have also said they would reject the policy. The
announcements reflect the news media's wide-ranging frustration with efforts by Pete Hegseth,
the defense secretary, to curtail the physical movement of reporters in the building and impose
fresh limits on their activities.
").
3 Erik Wemple, How the Pentagon Is Blocking Out News Organizations, N.Y. Times (Oct. 15,
2025), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/15/business/media/pentagon-press-
rules.html; David Baudner, Journalists turn in access badges, exit Pentagon rather than agree to
new reporting rules, Associated Press (Oct. 15, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-
press-access-hegseth-trump-restrictions-5d9c2a63e4e03b91fc1546bb09ffbf12.
3Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 41
reporting, the Department has welcomed what it calls the “next generation of the Pentagon press
corps” —individuals and media outlets strongly supportive of the Trump administration and
whose viewpoints the Department favors. Among that group are Mike Lindell, the chiefexecutive
ofMyPillow, who has promised to "make [the Administration] proud" with his Pentagoncoverage;
Laura Loomer, an influential pro-Trump activist; and Raheem Kassam, editor in chief of the
National Pulse, who described his publication as “basically an industry mag/site for MAGA
world.
" 6
9. These developments place the purpose and effect of the Policy in stark relief: to
fundamentally restrict coverage of the Pentagon by independent journalists and news
organizations, either by limiting what kind of information they can obtain and publish without
incurring punishment, or by driving them out of the Pentagon with an unconstitutional Policy.
While Plaintiffs' enterprising reporting on the military will continue, the Pentagon's Policy ensures
the suppression of certain newsworthy information—information, for instance, gathered by
directly questioning officials at press conferences or through routine unplanned interactions
between journalists and Pentagon personnel on Pentagon grounds.
10. The Policy abandons scrutiny by independent news organizations for the public's
benefit, and it violates the Constitution's guarantees of due process, freedom of speech, and
freedom of the press. The Policy fails to provide fair notice to Plaintiffs and other journalists and
news organizations of what, in the Department's “unbridled discretion,
" will (or will not) be
4 Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW), X (Oct. 22, 2025, at 1:21 PM),
https://x.com/SeanParnellASW/status/1981048206923329719.
5 See Ken Bensinger & Erik Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, N.Y. Times
(Nov. 4, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/business/media/new-pentagon-press-crew-
is-all-in-on-trump.html
6Id.Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 41
deemed improper newsgathering or reporting that warrants the immediate suspension and eventual
revocation of a PFAC. City ofLakewood, 486 U.S. at 757; see also Ateba, 133 F.4th at 125. And
its incurably vague language and lack of standards invite arbitrary as well as content- and
viewpoint-based determinations as to which reporters and news organizations will be granted or
denied access to the Pentagon and for what reasons. Indeed, Department officials have made clear
their viewpoint discriminatory aim in promulgating and implementing the Policy: Department
officials have publicly derided journalists who declined to sign the Acknowledgement as
"activists" and "propagandists” who spread “lies . to the American people,
" while praising
individuals approved to receive PFACsunder the Policy as free from “a biased agenda.
”7
11. The fact that the Department has conditioned journalists' access on their
willingness to attest to their understanding of an inscrutable Policy that targets their exercise of
First Amendment rights inflicts separate and additional constitutional harm on top ofthe Policy's
already irreparable chilling effect.
12. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the First Amendment guarantees “a 'rightto
gather information" " because “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the
press could be eviscerated.
” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 576 (1980)
(quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 681 (1972)). The D.C. Circuit held nearly fifty years
ago in the context of media access to the White House that “press facilities having been made
publicly available as a source of information for [journalists] , the protection afforded
newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom ofthe press . . . requires that . . .
7
Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW), X (Oct. 22, 2025, at 1:21 PM),
https://x.com/SeanParnellASW/status/1981048206923329719;
(@DOWResponse), X (Dec. 2, 2025, at 11:21 am),
https://x.com/DOWResponse/status/1995890967002452302.
5
DOW Rapid ResponseCase 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 41
access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.
” Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d
124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (citations omitted). The D.C. Circuit has since reaffirmed that “ the
interests of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining [such a] pass' is not only 'protected
by the first amendment' but also ‘ undoubtedly qualifies as [a] liberty [interest] which may not be
denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.
” Karem, 960 F.3d at 660 (second
and third alternations in original) (quoting Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130–131 ) .
13. The D.C. Circuit also has made clear that “the government creates a 'nonpublic
forum' when it provides ‘ selective access for individual speakers.
" " Ateba, 133 F.4th at 122
(citations omitted). Areas of the Pentagon, including the Pentagon Briefing Room, are nonpublic
forums under the First Amendment, and therefore any regulation on speech within those forums
must be reasonable and not intended to suppress expression based on the speaker's viewpoint. See
Minnesota Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. at 11-12. The Policy fails that test and violates the First
Amendment because it is “ an effort to suppress” speech and newsgathering based on viewpoint,
and because its restrictions are not reasonable “in light ofthe purpose served by the forum.
” Id. at
12-13 .
14. This binding precedent applies with full force here. There is no legitimate, letalone
compelling, justification for the provisions of the Policy targeting lawful newsgathering and
reporting purposefully vague and overbroad provisions designed to give Department officials
free rein to grant or deny Pentagon access to journalists and media outlets on the basis of viewpoint
and that are wholly untethered to any interest in the “safe, efficient and secure operation ofthe
Pentagon Reservation.
" 10 U.S.C. § 2674(c)(1). Those provisions violate the First Amendment.
City ofLakewood, 486 U.S. at 757; see also Ateba, 133 F.4th at 125. Further, because the Policy
permits the immediate suspension of a PFAC without providing reporters procedural protections,
6Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 8 of 41
it plainly violates the Due Process Clause. See Karem, 960 F.3d at 660; Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130-
131.
15. The Policy marks a radical departure from longstanding tradition, violates the Due
Process Clause and the First Amendment, and is inflicting irreparable harm on The Times and its
reporters, including Barnes, and on the American public. By this Complaint, Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that the provisions of the Policy targeting the exercise of First Amendment rights are
unlawful and an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing those
provisions ofthe Policy.
PARTIES
16.
The New YorkTimes Company is a privately owned for-profit corporation located
in New York. The Times is headquartered at 620 8th Avenue, New York , NY 10018. The Times'
Washington Bureau is located at 1627 I Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006. Prior to
the implementation ofthe Policy, six Times journalists, including Barnes, held PFACs. The Times
and its reporters, including Julian E. Barnes , are eligible to and, if the challenged portions of the
Policy were enjoined, would reobtain their PFACs .
17. Julian E. Barnes is a national security reporter with The Times who focuses on the
Pentagon, United States intelligence agencies, and international security, among other subjects.
Barnes has been with The Times since June 2018. Prior to that, Barnes covered the Pentagon for
other news organizations including U.S. News and World Report, The Los Angeles Times, and
The Wall Street Journal. He was first issued a PFAC in 2004. With the exception of an
approximately 18-month period in 2016 and 2017, Barnes continuously held a PFAC from 2004
until the end of August 2025, when it lapsed. Though he was eligible to and invited to do so,
Barnes did not seek to renew his PFAC due to the Policy. As a result of the Policy, Barnes was
compelled to turn in his lapsed PFAC on October 15, 2025. Barnes resides in the District of
7Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 9 of 41
Columbia and is assigned to The Times' Washington Bureau.
18. Defendant United States Department of Defense, also known as the Departmentof
War, is an executive agency ofthe U.S. federal government tasked with overseeing the U.S. Armed
Forces. The Department is headquartered at the Pentagon and maintains offices and facilities in
Washington, DC, and conducts a substantial amount of official business in and relating to this
District. The Department's address is 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301.
19. Defendant Pete Hegseth is the U.S. Secretary of Defense. He is sued in his official
capacity. Secretary Hegseth is responsible for overseeing the operations and administration ofthe
Department ofDefense and the U.S. Armed Forces, which include the Army, the Navy, theMarine
Corps, the Air Force, and the National Guard, as well as developing national defense policy. He
has ultimate authority over all Department policies, including the Policy at issue here, and he
conducts a substantial amount of official business in and relating to this District. As a member of
the President's Cabinet, Secretary Hegseth regularly performs his official duties within the District
ofColumbia.
20. Defendant Sean Parnell is the Chief Spokesman for the Pentagon and Assistant to
the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and conducts a substantial amount of official business
in and relating to this District. He is sued in his official capacity. Parnell serves as the
Department's principal spokesperson responsible for providing timely and accurate information
about the Department to the media, the U.S. Congress, and the public. He also coordinates and
conducts press briefings with members of the media. He issued the “Memorandum for Senior
Pentagon Leadership” (“Memorandum”) that, together with the “Pentagon Reservation In-Brief
for Media Members” (“In-Brief ”), constitute the Policy and, on information and belief, is
responsible for implementation ofthe Policy.
8Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25
Page 10 of 41
21 . This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because this action arises under the
Constitution ofthe United States and federal statutes , 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , and because the individual
Defendants are U.S. officials sued in their official capacities , 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) .
22.
The Court is authorized to grant the requested relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2202 , 5 U.S.C. § 706, Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , and pursuant to its inherent
equitable powers.
23. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(e)(1 ) because Barnes resides in this District, because The Times and its journalists,
including Barnes, regularly engage in newsgathering and reporting in this District, including at
The Times ' Washington Bureau , and because Defendants conduct a substantial amount of official
business in this District, and a substantial part ofthe events giving rise to the claims occurred in
the District of Columbia. In particular, among other things, Secretary Hegseth, as a member of
the President's Cabinet,
“ performs a significant amount of his official duties in the District of
Columbia," Bartman v. Cheney, 827 F. Supp . 1 , 2 n.2 (D.D.C. 1993 ) ( citation omitted); see also
Chin -Young v . Esper, 2019 WL 4247260 , at * 5 (D.D.C. Sep. 6 , 2019 ), and the Department's
decision -making with respect to the development and implementation of the Policy occurred , in
substantial part, within this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Pentagon Announces a New PFAC Policy
24. There is a long tradition ofjournalists covering the military from the grounds ofthe
Pentagon . That access has enabled , among other things , real- time , eyewitness reporting on the
Department's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 , 2001 , including the attack on the
9Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 11 of 41
Pentagon itself coverage the Department has lauded. Indeed, the ability ofjournalists to cover
the military from Pentagon grounds benefits the American public, in part, because it gives
Department officials the ability to correct misinformation and get accurate information to
journalists and, in turn, to the public quickly when there is a crisis.
25. Since the Pentagon opened in 1942, Department officials have afforded qualified
members of the press, including reporters with The Times, access to the Pentagon complex to
report on the military and other defense activities.
" Hanson W. Baldwin, a Times reporter who
won a Pulitzer Prize in 1943 for his coverage of World War II, for example, routinely visited the
Pentagon to gather news and speak with Department sources.
26. Historically, the press has had unescorted access to areas including the Pentagon
Press Briefing Room. As Times opinion columnist Maureen Dowd described in an October 18,
2025 column about the Policy, journalists from The Times and other media outlets previously
"could stake out Jim Mattis, a defense secretary in President Trump's first term, when he picked
up his clothes at an in-house dry cleaners and have an off-the-record chat as he walked back to his
office, shirts slung over his shoulder” or “might bump into the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staffat a Pentagon Starbucks and have a conversation that could turn into a story.
" 10
' In addition,
since the 1970s, the Pentagon provided reporters with dedicated office space in the building,
8 See, e.g. , Jim Garamone, Senior Pentagon Correspondent Recalls 9/11, DOD News (Sept. 7,
2021), https://www.war.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/2765676/senior-cnn-pentagon-
correspondent-recalls-911/ (Department press office interview with then-ABC News producer
Barbara Starr recounting her coverage of 9/11 from the Pentagon).
9 Eleanor Watson, CBS News Ends Over 60-YearPresence at Pentagon After Declining to Sign
New Press Requirements, CBS News (Oct. 17, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-
pentagon-60-year-presence-press-requirements/.
10 Maureen Dowd, Fraidy-Cat at the Pentagon, N.Y. Times (Oct. 18, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/18/opinion/pentagon-journalists-news-hegseth.html .
10Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 12 of 41
known as the Pentagon News Room, where reporters set up desks and TV network booths.
Qualified members ofthe press, including Times journalists, have had access to such areas within
the Pentagon building for more than eight decades. That access, which was not conditioned on the
perceived viewpoint ofjournalists and their news organizations, or the content of their reporting,
served the interests of the American public and posed no security or safety risk to Pentagon
property or personnel.
27. Since Secretary Hegseth tookoffice— and, in particular, since March of2025, when
Secretary Hegseth and other top officials inadvertently disclosed details regarding imminent U.S.
airstrikes in Yemen to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic by adding him to a group chat
on the messaging platform Signal—the Department has sought to impose increasingly stringent
and unprecedented restrictions on journalists covering the Department and its leadership.¹¹
28. On May 23, 2025, Secretary Hegseth issued what he called “Updated Physical
Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the Pentagon,
" imposing restrictions on
journalists' access to specific areas of the building, including in the vicinity of his office, and
requiring journalists to be accompanied by official “escorts” when visiting certain areas . See Ex.
F at 1-2. These changes were not precipitated by any security or safety incident involving a PFAC
holder. On the contrary, according to the “Memorandum for Resident and Visiting Press Assigned
to the Pentagon,
” these “updated security measures” were purportedly “needed to reduce the
opportunities for in-person inadvertent and unauthorized disclosures.
” Id.; see also Erik Wemple,
Inside Hegseth's Effort to Limit Press Access at the Pentagon, N.Y. Times (Oct. 10, 2025)
(“Under [Secretary Hegseth's] leadership, the [D]epartment has removed national news outlets
11 See JeffreyGoldberg, The Trump Administration Accidentally TextedMe Its WarPlans, The
Atlantic (Mar. 24, 2025), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-
administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/.
11Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 13 of 41
from a shared media workspace [and] has scaled back reporters' ability to roam Pentagon
corridors.
").12 These restrictions coincide with other efforts by the Department to restrictthe flow
of newsworthy information to the public, both via the press,
13
¹³ and via Congress.¹
14
29.
On September 18, 2025, Parnell issued a “Memorandum for Senior Pentagon
Leadership" ("September 18 Memorandum”) attaching a “Pentagon Reservation In-Brief for
Media Members” (“September 18 In-Brief ” ; together, the “September 18 Policy”). In the
September 18 Memorandum, which purported to implement the Department's “Updated Physical
Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the Pentagon,
” Parnell announced new policies
governing the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of PFACs that went even further than
the newly instituted “physical control measures.
” Ex. E at 3–10.
30. The September 18 Memorandum explained that “[a]ll members ofthe press issued
a [PFAC] will be required to read and sign a new in-brief form outlining information security
requirements, the new physical control measures, and [Department] expectations of their
compliance with safety and security requirements.
” Ex. E at 1 .
31. In addition to setting out specific requirements for physical presence within the
facility, including restrictions on journalists' access to certain floors of the Pentagon, Ex. E at 4,
the September 18 In-Brief also included provisions addressed to the “unauthorized” disclosure of
12 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/business/media/hegseth-pentagon-press-access.html.
13 See, e.g., Dan Lamothe & Ellen Nakashima, Hegseth team told to stop polygraph tests after
complaint to White House, Wash. Post (July 26, 2025),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/26/pete-hegseth-leak-investigation-
trump/.
14 See , e.g., Ben Finley & Konstantin Toropin, Hegseth changes policy on how Pentagon
officials communicate with Congress, Wash. Post (Oct. 21, 2025),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/21/defense-department-pentagon-hegseth-
congress/90711972-aef4-11f0-ab72-a5fffa9bf3eb_story.html .
12Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 14 of 41
information. Specifically, it stated that “[Department] information must be approved for public
release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified" because
"[u]nauthorized disclosure of CNSI [classified national security information] or CUI [controlled
unclassified information] poses a security risk that could damage the national security of the
United States and place [Department] personnel in jeopardy.
” Id. at 5.
32. The September 18 iteration of the In-Briefwas followed by an “Acknowledgment"
that required PFAC holders to agree that they could be “determined to pose a security or safety
risk . . . based on the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized
disclosure of [classified national security information] or [controlled unclassified information],
”
and to initial next to other statements, including that “PFACs are a courtesy.
” Ex. E at 11 .
33. The September 18 In-Briefalso set forth a process for PFAC issuance, renewal, and
termination. It provided that "PFACs may be denied, revoked, or not renewed if a person is
reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk to [Department] personnel or property[.]"
Ex. E at 6, 11. It further provided that “[a]n initial determination of security or safety risk may
result in an immediate suspension of Pentagon access during the process for making a final
determination,
" which “may be based on the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access,
or unauthorized disclosure" of Department information. Id. at 6; see id. at 11 .
34. An Appendix to the September 18 Policy provided that the grounds for determining
whether a journalist poses a security or safety risk “include, but are not limited to,
” convictions for
certain offenses or “actions other than conviction . such as attempts to improperly obtain"
Department information, or “being found in physical possession of " such information “without
reporting it.
" Ex. E at 13. This Appendix also stated that a PFAC holder would be notified of a
13Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 15 of 41
decision to deny, revoke, or not renew a PFAC in writing, including the basis for the decision,
after which the journalist would have 30 days to appeal that decision. Id. at 13–14.
Members ofthe Press Object to the Policy
35. The Department's announcement of its new Policy sparked widespread confusion
and concern among news organizations and journalists who cover the Pentagon. On September
22, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (the "Reporters Committee” or “RCFP")
sent a letter to Parnell asking for clarification as to how the Policy's restriction on disclosure would
be applied and whether the Acknowledgment was intended to require journalists to agree not to
publish information without first obtaining Department approval. Ex. B.
36. In a response letter dated September 24, Parnell wrote to "clarif [y]" that the
restriction against disclosure in the Policy is one that Pentagon personnel must follow, and "does
not impose restrictions on journalistic activities, such as investigating, reporting, or publishing
stories.
” Ex. C at 1 , 3. According to Parnell,
“it informs PFAC holders of [the Department]'s
internal policies and the process for managing building access, which is a privilege extended to
facilitate responsible coverage.
" Id. The letter disclaimed any attempt to require that
“reporters . . . seek [Department] approval for their stories or endorse any viewpoint on pre-
authorization,
" and stated that “[j ]ournalists remain free to gather information through legitimate
means, such as Freedom of Information Act requests, official briefings, or unsolicited tips, and to
publish as they deem newsworthy.
” Id. at 2.
37. This letter, however, provided cold comfort. According to Parnell, the "focus "of
the Policy was “on preventing active solicitation that encourages [Department] personnel to violate
these disclosure rules, as such conduct is not always protected by the First Amendment.
" Ex. C at
2. Parnell also confirmed that the First Amendment-protected receipt and publication of
14Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 16 of 41
unsolicited, classified or protected information “could factor” into the Department's wholly
“discretion[ary]” decision to revoke a reporter's PFAC. Id.
38. On September 28, 2025, Timothy Parlatore-Secretary Hegseth's private attorney
and advisor¹5 -circulated a redlined, revised version of the Acknowledgement to members ofthe
media integrating language from the Parnell letter. Ex. D. The revisions included a number of
statements that appeared designed to characterize the Policy, including the Acknowledgment
requirement, as“not impos[ing] any obligations on [PFAC holders] to refrain from constitutionally
protected journalistic activities.
” Id. at 2. But these statements contradicted other specific
statements in the Policy that do in fact directly intrude on “ constitutionally protected journalistic
activities.
" Id. For example, the Policy as revised continued to expressly claim that Department
officials had uncabined “ discretion[]" to immediately suspend a PFAC based on a determination
that activities protected by the First Amendment, including lawful newsgathering and publication,
posed a “security or safety risk.
” Ex. A at 10. And, according to the redlined Acknowledgement,
any “direct communications with specific [Department] personnel or general appeals, such as
public advertisements or calls for tips”—typical, lawful newsgathering techniques that journalists
routinely utilize— would constitute “solicitation” in violation ofthe Policy. Ex. D at 2.
39. News organizations and PFAC-holding journalists from numerous outlets,
including The Times, informed Pentagon leadership that the September 28, 2025 revisions to the
Policy did not cure its constitutional defects and that they could not sign the Acknowledgement
consistent with their rights and responsibilities as members ofthe press.
15 See Dan Lamothe, Hegseth's legalfixer at the center ofPentagon's new media restrictions,
Wash. Post (Oct. 15, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-
security/2025/10/15/hegseth-media-restrictions-tim-parlatore/.
15Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 17 of 41
The Pentagon Announces Its Final Policy and Mandates That PFAC Holders Sign the
Acknowledgement
40. On October 6, 2025, the Department issued its final Policy, a true and correct copy
ofwhich is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
41 . The current and final version ofthe Policy includes an Acknowledgment that states:
I have received, read, and understand the “Pentagon Reservation In-brieffor Media
Members,
" with [relevant appendices] which address[] the standard and procedures
for denying, revoking, and not renewing a PFAC.
The in-brief describes
[Department] policies and procedures. My signature represents my
acknowledgement and understanding of such [Department] policies and procedures,
even if I do not necessarily agree with such policies and procedures. Signing this
acknowledgment does not waive any rights I may have under law.
Exhibit A at 14.
42. Even though the Policy invokes the Secretary's statutory authority under 10 U.S.C.
§ 2674 to safeguard the physical property of the Pentagon itself, the Policy was neither motivated
by nor narrowly tailored to any such interest. To the contrary, the Policy reaffirms the
Department's position that it possesses unbridled discretion to rescind a PFAC based on First
Amendment-protected newsgathering and reporting wherever it occurs. Specifically, the In-Brief
states that while allowing that “the receipt of unsolicited" classified or unclassified information
"and its subsequent publication is generally protected by the First Amendment and would not, on
its own, normally trigger denial, revocation, or non-renewal of a PFAC,
” if a journalist "solicit[s]
the disclosure of such information or otherwise encourages [ Department] personnel to violate laws
and policies concerning the disclosure of such information,
” the Department may deem the
journalist a "security or safety risk.
” Id. at 12.
43. Withrespect to what constitutes improper “solicitation” in the Department's view,
the In-Brief states that “solicitation” in violation of the Policy "may include direct communications
with specific [Department] personnel or general appeals, such as public advertisements or calls for
16Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 18 of 41
tips . ..
"
” and it cites “an advertisement or social media post by an individual journalist or social
media outlet that directly targets [Department] personnel to disclose non-public information
without proper authorization” as an “example” ofwhat “would constitute a solicitation that could
lead to revocation " of a PFAC. Ex. A at 12–13.
44. The Policy also takes an expansive approach to what “non-public information" the
Department may view as being off limits, and if “solicited,
” obtained or published could result in
the denial, suspension or revocation of a reporter's PFAC. According to the Policy, such
unclassified information “may include, but is not limited to, information protected by the Privacy
Act, information that is law enforcement-sensitive, and certain operational security information.
"
Id. at 6. And purportedly “ [t]o ensure the safety ofU.S. personnel,
” the Policy instructs journalists
“who find themselves in possession of information that appears to be [classified national security
information] or [controlled unclassified information]” to “discuss those materials with the
[Pentagon Press Operations] prior to publication.
” Id.
45. In addition to reiterating the Department's view that “members of the news media
do not possess a legal right to access the Pentagon" and that “such access is a privilege subject to
the discretion of government authorities,
” Ex. A, at 3 , the Policy explains that a PFAC "may be
denied, revoked, or not renewed if a person is reasonably determined to pose a security or safety
risk to [Department] personnel or property,
" and that “[s]uch determination may be based on
factors including, but not limited to, the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or
unauthorized disclosure of " classified or unclassified information “based on a reasonable
assessment informed by the unique facts and circumstances of each case.
" Id. at 12.
46. The Policy further states that Pentagon officials have the discretion to “deny,
revoke, or refuse to renew the PFAC of any person reasonably determined to pose a security or
17Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 19 of 41
safety risk to [Department] personnel or property.
” Ex. A at 15. It explains that " [p]ersons
presumed to present such a risk include, but are not limited to, those who have been convicted of
any offense involving ,
” among other things “[u]nprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt
Pentagon operations.
” Id. (emphasis added). The Policy does not explain what type of
“conviction” it refers to with respect to “[u]nprofessional conduct,
” and expressly notes that
“actions other than conviction may be deemed to pose a security or safety risk.
” Id.
47. The Policy expressly states that an “initial determination” that ajournalist “pose[s]
a security or safety risk. . . may result in an immediate suspension” of a PFAC “while the
procedures preceding a final determination are pending.
” Ex. A at 12.
48. Following its issuance of the Policy on October 6, the Department gave PFAC
holders until October 14 to review and sign the Acknowledgment.
49. The decision to issue the Policy, as well as related decisions regarding the content
of the Policy, were made either in full or in substantial part by Secretary Hegseth and other
Department officials and advisors located in the District of Columbia.
The Department Revokes Reporters' Access
50.
Prior to the Department's deadline, journalists with PFACs at The Times and
virtually every other major news organization covering the Pentagon uniformly declined to sign
the Acknowledgment. Instead, they informed Pentagon officials that they believed the Policy, and
the Department's insistence that they sign the Acknowledgment, violated their First Amendment
rights. As a result, on October 15, 2025, they were compelled to turn in their PFACs. On
information and belief, of the 56 news outlets represented in the Pentagon Press Association
(PPA), only one agreed to sign the Acknowledgement.
18Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 20 of 41
The Department Selects a New “Pentagon Press Corps” Based on Viewpoint
51. Within days, Parnell took to his officialX account to “ announce the next generation
of the Pentagon press corps .
" In describing the “[n]ew media outlets” willing to accede to the
Department's “media access policy,
" Parnell wrote that they “circumvent the lies of the
mainstream media and get real news to the American people,
” and “[t]heir reach and impact
collectively are far more effective and balanced than the self-righteous media who chose to self-
deport from the Pentagon"-journalists “in the mainstream media” whom Parnell described as
"activists who masquerade as journalists.
"16
52. New PFACrecipients include the National Pulse, which was described by its editor-
in-chief as “an industry mag/site for MAGA world" ; Laura Loomer, an “influential pro-Trump
activist"; and former congressman Matt Gaetz, President Trump's one-time choice for Attorney
General of the United States, who is now affiliated with One America News .17 Many have
expressed ideological support for the Trump administration or indicated that they do not intend to
report critically on the Pentagon. 18 For example, Libby Emmons, the editor-in-chief of Human
Events and the Post Millennial who requested four passes for her staff after “receiv[ing] an
unsolicited invitation to apply for credentials,
" stated that “[t]here should be a place for reporting
on what they are doing without always trying to expose the dark underbelly,
” and Tim Pool, who
16 Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW), X (Oct. 22, 2025, at 1:21 PM),
https://x.com/SeanParnellASW/status/1981048206923329719.
17 Besinger & Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, supra n.5; David Bauder,
Somefriendly, some on-the-news questions atfirstbriefingfor new Pentagon press corps, AP
News (Dec. 2, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-corps-access-journalists-
96163e7ac0c8a73a44178fb5bb852863.
18 Besinger & Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, supra n. 5 .
19Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 21 of41
event with Secretary Hegseth.20 In welcoming what she called the “ official new members of the
disclosed that his outlet would be getting a credential , explained that his is “not an investigative
19
news organization” and he did “not intend to maintain a significant presence in the Pentagon .
”"
53. Earlier this week, the Department held its first in-person press events on Pentagon
grounds since the Policy went into effect, which included a press briefing and a “meet- and - greet ”
Pentagon Press Corps ," Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson ( "Wilson") specifically
focused on the Department's preference for their First Amendment activities. She criticized
journalists and news organizations, like Plaintiffs, who had previously held PFACs, calling them
"propagandists " who "stopped telling the truth,
” and she praised those the Department had selected
to cover the Pentagon , asserting that they “actually reach Americans, ask real questions , and don't
pursue a biased agenda.
54. ”21
Similarly, in determining when solicitation of unapproved information is
permissible, the Department has already drawn distinctions based on favored and disfavored
content and speakers . In her X post announcing that LOOMERED “is now a credentialed outlet
at the Pentagon,
” Loomer stated : “ I have developed a Rolodex of sources and if you have any tips ,
feel free to contact the Loomered Tip Line: the most influential Tip Line in all of DC.
”22 When
19 Id.
20
Scott Nover, Pentagon's right-wing, pared press corps gets a meet -and-greet, Wash . Post
(Nov. 29, 2025 ), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/11/29/pentagon-press-policy-
hegseth/.
21 DOW Rapid Response (@DOWResponse) , X (Dec. 2 , 2025 , at 11:21 am ) ,
https://x.com/DOWResponse/status/1995890967002452302.
22
Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer), X (Nov. 3 , 2025 , at 11:13 PM),
https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1985560924720124414 .
20Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 22 of 41
asked whether Loomer's “request for tips violates its new press policy,
"23 the Department
responded that it did not. Through a statement attributable to Wilson, the Department stated:
Unlike [the Washington Post's] solicitation, which explicitly and exclusively targets
military personnel and DoW employees, Laura Loomer's X post regarding tips to her news
outlet is a general tip line, which is constitutionally permissible. Therefore it does not
violate the Pentagon's media access policy. This distinction was explained in detail to the
Pentagon Press Association before they chose to engage in a dishonest and performative
walk out. IfFake News reporters actually had a brain and could read our policy correctly,
then maybe one day they will be as effective of a journalist as Ms. Loomer is.
24
This explanation came on the heels of another statement from Wilson in which she asserted that
"we have seen a lot of the mainstream media continue to lie.
"25
55.
In another instance, at the first official press conference held by Wilson on
December 2, 2025, James O'Keefe, founder of the conservative group Project Veritas, noted that
he had surreptitiously recorded a high-level Pentagon official making unguarded statements that
were plainly unapproved by Department leadership-newsgathering now ostensibly prohibited by
the Policy. Wilson, however, praised O'Keefe's work, which appeared to expose a critic of
President Trump, noting: “That's why the work you all do is so important.
"26
56. While the Pentagon has opened its press room to those who are willing to report
only the official line, the need for independent reporting has been underscored by the ongoing
public controversies involving the Pentagon. For example, on December 1 , 2025, The Times
23 Scott Nover (@ScottNover), X (Nov. 4, 2025, at 1:53 PM),
https://x.com/ScottNover/status/1985782401755128207.
24 Scott Nover (@ScottNover), X (Nov. 4, 2025, at 2:02 PM),
https://x.com/ScottNover/status/1985784630100804036.
25 Besinger & Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, supra n. 5.
26 James O'Keefe Asks Pentagon Press Secretary Question About Identifying Anti-Trump
Members ofDOD, Forbes Breaking News, YouTube (Dec. 2, 2025),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQfpJfAgIdU; see also James O'Keefe
(@JamesOkeefeIII) , X (Apr. 23 , 2025 at 3:46 PM),
https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1915175452404035624.
21Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 23 of 41
of drugs.27 The Times' reporting was based on information gathered from “five U.S. officials,
reported that the U.S. military's strikes on a boat in the Caribbean Sea, which occurred on
September 2 , 2025 , were made in response to a directive by Secretary Hegseth that the strike
should kill the peopleon board and destroy the vessel and its contents , including a purported cargo
who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity.”28
57.
In recent weeks , The Times also has reported , inter alia, on efforts by Secretary
Hegseth to fire or sideline generals and admirals,29 the Pentagon's inquiry into Senator Mark
Kelly's remarks urging members of the military not to follow illegal orders, 30 and significant
changes to United States military personnel policies and training requirements.³¹
58 . Attack butNotthe Killing ofSurvivors, Officials Say, N.Y. Times (Dec. 1 , 2025),
While reporters from The Times and other news organizations without PFACs have
continued and will continue to gather news and publish important stories about the Department
and the United States military, the Policy ensures that certain stories will no longer be available to
those journalists and news organizations and to the public that relies on their reporting. As one
new PFAC recipient put it earlier this week when asked why he was reporting from the Pentagon:
27 Charlie Savage , Julian E. Barnes , Eric Schmitt & John Ismay, Hegseth Ordered a Lethal
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/hegseth-drug-boat-strike-order-venezuela.html .
28 Id
.
29 Greg Jaffe, Eric Schmitt & Helene Cooper, Hegseth Is Purging Military Leaders WithLittle
Explanation, N.Y. Times (Nov. 7, 2025) ,
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/us/politics/hegseth-firing-military-leaders.html .
30
Greg Jaffee, Pentagon Opens Inquiry Into Senator MarkKelly Over WhatHegseth Calls
' Seditious ' Video, N.Y. Times (Nov. 24, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/us/politics/mark-kelly-pentagon-investigation.html .
31
, e.g. , Dave Phillipps, Veterans See Costs and Risks in Hegseth's Military Rewind to 1990,
N.Y. Times (Oct. 2 , 2025 ), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/hegseth-military-veterans-
standards.html ; John Ismay, What Women Heard in Hegseth's Remarks About Physical
Standards, N.Y. Times (Oct. 2 , 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/politics/women-
military-hegseth-physical-standards.html.
See
22Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 24 of41
"
Press have always worked at the Pentagon . ... Correspondents place themselves at the buildings
so when a major story breaks they're there to cover it.”³2
59 . Stories based on routine unplanned interactions between journalists and Pentagon
personnel on Pentagon grounds , stories based on probing questions asked at press briefings and
up questions posed to officials by reporters from other
person , and often spontaneous exchanges, in which reporters can judge the demeanor of
government officials as they respond to questions in real time and press for more information on
news conferences , stories built from follow-
outlets, and stories that capture the mood and atmosphere within the Pentagon during times of
consequential military operations are all examples of what Plaintiffs can no longer report. In-
the spot, are different in kind and can elicit different information than inquiries by phone or by
email . Without their PFACs, Plaintiffs and other journalists and news organizations are deprived
of unique , newsworthy information that can only be obtained in person and through such
exchanges . Cf. ABC , Inc. v Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 99 (2d Cir. 2004) (
“
[O] ne cannot transcribe an
anguished look or a nervous tic.
"
).
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Violation ofthe Due Process Clause (Void for Vagueness)
( APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
60. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of
the Complaint.
61 . The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “
No person shall
be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend . V.
32 Cam Higby (@camhigby ) , X (Dec. 1 , 2025 , at 4:45 PM),
https://x.com/camhigby/status/1995655541474165162.
23Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 25 of 41
The Times and its reporters, including Barnes, have both a liberty and a property interest in their
PFACS.
62. The Policy violates the Due Process Clause because it "fail[s] to provide the kind
of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits” and
"authorize[s] and even encourage[s] arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
" City ofChicago
v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 , 56 (1999). In both respects the Policy is unconstitutionally vague.
63. "A law is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide a person of ordinary
intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages
seriously discriminatory enforcement.
" Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, 72 F.4th
1286, 1303 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted). The vagueness doctrine serves to ensure that
“regulated parties [ ] know what is required of them so they may act accordingly” and “that those
enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way.
" FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012).
"When speech is involved, rigorous adherence to those
requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech.
" Id. at 253-
54; see also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 109 (1972) (“[W]here a vague statute
'abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,
' it ‘ operates to inhibit the
exercise of [those] freedoms.
' Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to ‘ steer far wider of
the unlawful zone'
... than if the boundaries ofthe forbidden areas were clearly marked.
” ” ).
64. It is “[a] fundamental principle in our legal system” that “laws which regulate
persons or entities must givefair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.
” Karem, 960 F.3d
at 664 (quoting Fox Television, 567 U.S. at 253). As the D.C. Circuit has recognized,
“[s]uch
'[e]lementary notions of fairness'
...
'dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the
conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that [the
24Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 26 of 41
government] may impose. 222
Id . (quoting BMW ofN. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574 (1996)
(alternations in original)). Simply put, as the Supreme Court has made clear,
“the Due Process
Clause does not permit” the Department “to classify arbitrariness as a virtue.
" State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003) (quoting Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,
499 U.S. 1 , 59 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (explaining that the government “can have no legitimate
interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoidpunishment
based solely upon bias or whim")). These principles carry special force in the First Amendment
context, Karem, 960 F.3d at 660, and alone warrant injunctive relief, id. at 668.
65.
"[T]he suspension of a hard pass, like the denial of a hard pass ,
'implicate[s]'
'important first amendment rights,
" " and therefore must be “evaluate[ d] . . . under a particularly
'stringent vagueness [and fair-notice] test.
” Karem, 960 F.3d at 665 (quoting Sherrill, 569 F.2d
at 130). To afford adequate process, the government must provide sufficient advance notice
through “explicit and meaningful standard[s]" that are “formally articulated or published,
” and
specifically describe both the conduct that would warrant sanctions and the severity of the
sanctions that may be imposed . Id. at 660 (quoting Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130–31).
66. The Policy fails to provide fair notice. Instead, it makes immediate suspension and
eventual revocation of a PFAC a wholly discretionary determination such that Department officials
"may " (or may not) determine that a PFAC holder is a “safety or security" risk based on a number
of factors, including the lawful newsgathering and reporting that Plaintiffs engage in every day
and intend to continue to engage in. See Ex. A at 12-13 . The Policy also threatens to revoke
PFACS when Pentagon officials in their sole discretion conclude journalists have engaged in
“[u]nprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations.
” Id. at 15. The Policy
is also internally contradictory; it claims not to target constitutionally protected activities but
25Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 27 of 41
creates a system that , on its face, does just that . The Policy's lack of objective, discernible
enforcement standards, coupled with its inherently contradictory provisions , deprive PFAC
holders ofthe requisite “fair notice" to satisfy the demands of Due Process.
67. The Act is independently void for vagueness because the law “is so standardless
that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.
” United States v. Williams,
553 U.S. 285 , 304
(2008)
.
Plaintiffs
68.
69.
In each respect, the Policy violates the Fifth Amendment facially and as applied to
.
Defendants ' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewable under
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 .
70. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
71 . The Court should declare specified provisions ofthe Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy.
COUNT II
Violation ofthe First Amendment
(
Unbridled Discretion)
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe preceding paragraphs.
73 . The Supreme Court has long recognized “the time-tested knowledge that in the area
of free expression a licensing statute placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government
official or agency constitutes a prior restraint and may result in censorship.
” City of Lakewood ,
486 U.S. at 757. “[E]ven if the government may constitutionally impose content -neutral
prohibitions on a particular manner of speech, it may not condition that speech on obtaining a
26Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 28 of 41
license or permit from a government official in that official's boundless discretion.
" Id. at 764.
That is because “a law or policy permitting communication in a certain manner for some but not
for others raises the specter of content and viewpoint censorship" and that "danger is at its zenith
when the determination of who may speak and who may not is left to the unbridled discretion ofa
government official.
” Id. at 763.
74. The Policy has established a licensing regime that conditions Plaintiffs' ability to
gather news on Pentagon grounds on obtaining a PFAC that can be suspended, denied, or revoked
in the Department's “boundless discretion,
" including for speech and newsgathering that takes
place off Pentagon grounds. Id. at 764.
75. The Policy expressly permits Pentagon officials to determine that a journalist
"pose[s] a security or safety risk to [Department] personnel or property,
” based on that journalist's
receipt, publication, or “solicitation” of any “unauthorized” information, Ex . A at 12-13, without
limitation, and expressly provides that such a determination “may result in an immediate
suspension of Pentagon access.
" Id. at 8, 12. This determination is made by Department
officials based on “the unique facts and circumstances of each case,
' "on a case-by-case basis,
"
and considering “the totality of the circumstances.
" Id. at 12-13. The Policy thereby vests
Department officials with unbridled discretion to suspend and/or revoke reporters' access to the
Pentagon for engaging in lawful newsgathering or for reporting any information not approved by
Department officials-regardless of whether such newsgathering occurs on or off Pentagon
grounds, and regardless of whether the information at issue is classified or unclassified. Id.; see
also Ex. C. at 2.
76. By vesting Department officials with unbridled discretion to cause the “immediate
suspension of [reporters'] Pentagon access” and to “ den[y], revoke[], not renew[], or suspend[]" a
27Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 29 of 41
reporter's PFAC based on the information that reporter has “solicited,
" received, written, or
published, Ex . A at 8, 12–13, 15, the Policy constitutes precisely the kind of “prior restraint”
described in City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 757. “[T]he mere existence of the [Department's]
unfettered discretion, coupled with the power ofprior restraint,
" is designed to “intimidate[] parties
into censoring their own speech, even if the discretion and power are never actually abused.
” Id.
The Policy is "unconstitutional, because without standards governing the exercise ofdiscretion,
"
the Department “may decide who may” access the Pentagon and "who may not based upon the
content ofthe speech or the viewpoint of the speaker.
” Id. at 763–64.
77. The risk of discretionary punishment based on protected newsgathering and
publication chills the exercise of First Amendment rights. The Policy as written necessarily forces
news organizations and journalists, including Plaintiffs, to weigh the risk of suspension or
revocation oftheir Pentagon access against the public interest in engaging in lawful newsgathering
and reporting. Id. at 757-58. In this way, the Policy impermissibly chills speech and
"discourage[s] the ‘ uninhibited , robust, and wide-open debate that the First Amendment is
intended to protect.
" See Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 68 (2023) (quoting Rogers v.
United States, 422 U.S. 35, 48 (1975) (quoting Sullivan, 276 U.S. at 270)).
78. In this respect, the Policy violates the First Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
79. Defendants'adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
80. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
28Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 30of41
81 . The Court should declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy
.
COUNT III
Violation of the First Amendment (Unconstitutional Denial of Access to Nonpublic Forum)
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
82 . Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe preceding paragraphs.
83 . News organizations and journalists , including Plaintiffs, have historically had
access to the Pentagon , including to the Pentagon Press Briefing Room , and such access has not
posed any risk to the safety or security ofPentagon property or personnel .
84. " Although the government is not required to open such spaces for any speech at all,
the government creates a ' nonpublic forum '
when it provides ' selective access for individual
speakers.
Pentagon Briefing Room , are nonpublic forums for First Amendment purposes . See Ateba, 133
F.4th at 121-22 (holding that White House press area was a nonpublic forum for First Amendment
purposes); see also United States v. Nassif , 97 F.4th 968 , 976–77 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (United States
Capitol buildings are nonpublic forums for First Amendment purposes).
forum "for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise , as long as the regulation on speech
is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials
" Ateba , 133 F.4th at 122 (citations omitted). Areas of the Pentagon , including the
85. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the government may reserve a nonpublic
the
oppose
speaker's view .
" Minnesota Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. at 11–12 .
86. Because the Policy is "an effort to suppress"
speech and newsgatheringon
Pentagon grounds by members of the press , including Plaintiffs, whose reporting and perceived
viewpoints the Department disfavors , the Policy violates the First Amendment. Id.
29 29Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 31 of 41
87. The Policy also violates the First Amendment because its provisions targeting
Plaintiffs' newsgathering and reporting are not reasonable “in light of the purpose served by the
forum.
” Minnesota VotersAlliance, 585 U.S. at 12–13 (citation omitted). Those provisions ofthe
Policy were not prompted by any specific security or safety concern or security incident involving
a PFAC holder and are unrelated to the “security or safety" of "[Department] personnel or
property,
" objectives they purport to further. Ex. A at 12.
88.
That the Policy provides that a PFAC can be suspended, denied, or revoked in the
Department's standardless and “boundless discretion,
" City ofLakewood, 486 U.S. at 764, alone
makes the provisions targeting Plaintiffs' newsgathering and reporting unreasonable.
See
Minnesota VotersAlliance, 585 U.S. at 21–22 (holding that a state's “indeterminate prohibition”
on certain apparel in polling places—nonpublic forums— was unreasonable and therefore violated
the First Amendment including because it failed to include “objective, workable standards” for
enforcement); see also Ateba, 133 F.4th at 125 (explaining that “the exercise of unbridled
discretion to deny access to a nonpublic forum is unreasonable” (citing Am. Freedom Def .
Initiative v.Wash. Metro. Area TransitAuth. 901 F.3d 356, 364 372 (D.C. Cir. 2018))).
89
.
In this respect, the Policy violates the First Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
90. Defendants' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
91. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
3030Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 32of41
92 . The Court should declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy.
Count IV
Violation of the First Amendment (Content- Based and Viewpoint- Based Restraint on
Newsgathering and Publication)
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
93 . Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe preceding paragraphs .
94 .
“The First Amendment guarantees a free press primarily because of the important
role it can play ‘as a vital source of public information . ”” Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705 , 710 (D.C.
Cir. 1981 ) (quoting Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 , 250 ( 1936)).
“Without an
unfettered press, citizens would be far less able to make informed political, social, and economic
choices,
" and "journalists frequently depend on informants to gather news .” Id. at 711. The First
Amendment protects not only the right to publish but also journalists ”
“right to gather information ”
because "without some protection for seeking out the news , freedom of the press could be
eviscerated .
" Richmond Newspapers, Inc. , 448 U.S. at 576 (quoting Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 681 ).
95. The First Amendment right to gather information protects reporters' ability to
that the “public harm that would flow from undermining all source relationships would be
receive information, including by developing and speaking to sources. In re Grand Jury Subpoena ,
immense"
).
JudithMiller, 438 F.3d 1141 , 1168 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Tatel , J., concurring in judgment) ( explaining
96. The newsgathering and publication of information about the Department and its
leadership that Plaintiffs engage in routinely, including the publication of stories based on
information PFAC holders learn from
sources and newsgathering efforts off Pentagon property,
31Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 33 of 41
are protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiffs have continued and intend to continue to engage
in such First Amendment-protected activity, including lawful speech and newsgathering that the
Department deems in violation of its Policy.
97. In its “inevitable effect ” and “stated purposes,
" the Policy is a content-based and
viewpoint-based restriction on such newsgathering and publication; it is therefore subject to strict
scrutiny. Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 565 (2011) (citation omitted); Reed v. Town
of Gilbert, Ariz. , 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015) (explaining that content-based restrictions "are
presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are
narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests"); see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors
of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 , 829 (1995) (explaining that viewpoint discrimination is an
"egregious form of content discrimination").
98. The In-Brief explains that Plaintiffs' “PFACs may be denied, revoked, or not
renewed if a person is reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk to [Department]
personnel or property.
” Ex. A at 8, 12. In describing what might make an individual “a security
or safety risk,
" the Policy adopts a content-based standard: such a “determination may be based on
factors including, but not limited to[, ]" the “solicitation” or “unauthorized disclosure" ofclassified
or unclassified information. Id. at 12. The Policy thus permits Department officials, in their
discretion, to cause the “immediate suspension of [Plaintiffs'] Pentagon access” and to "den[y],
revoke[], not renew[], or suspend[]" Plaintiffs' PFACs based on that First Amendment-protected
activity. Id. at 8, 12–13, 15.
99. The Policy is intended to and is being implemented to restrain and chill the speech
and newsgathering activity ofjournalists and news organizations, including Plaintiffs, on the basis
of content and perceived viewpoint. In a recent X post, Parnell explained that the Policy forced
32Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 34 of 41
journalists and news organizations, including Plaintiffs, to “self-deport[]" from the Pentagon,
asserted that those journalists and news organizations “lie[],
” do not report “real news” and are
"activists who masquerade as journalists,
" and called them less “effective and balanced" than their
"new media" replacements,33 who have evinced support for the Trump administration.³4 Such
"viewpoint discrimination is poison.
” Frederick Douglass Found. , Inc. v. District ofColumbia,
82 F.4th 1122, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted).
100. The Department has made clear that for certain disfavored journalists and news
organizations, providing a means for potential sources to give their journalists tips violates the
Policy. Ex. D at 2. At the same time, the Department has made clear that this same activity, when
engaged in by a favoredjournalist or media outlet, will not be considered by the Department to be
a violation. 35
101. The provisions of the Policy that target speech and newsgathering by members of
the press, including Plaintiffs, are not narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest.
102.
There is an unbroken history of journalists, including journalists with The Times,
reporting from Pentagon grounds without posing any risk to the safety or security of Pentagon
personnel or property and the Policy was not motivated by or implemented to address any
legitimate, specific safety or security concern. The Policy is wholly untethered to any legitimate
interest in preventing “security or safety risk[s ] to [Department] personnel or property,
” Ex. A at
33 Parnell (@SeanParnellASW), X (Oct. 22, 2025, at 1:21 PM).
34 See Besinger & Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, supra n . 5.
35 Scott Nover (@ScottNover), X (Nov. 4, 2025, at 2:02 PM),
https://x.com/ScottNover/status/1985784630100804036; James O'Keefe Asks Pentagon Press
Secretary Question About Identifying Anti-Trump Members ofDOD, Forbes Breaking News,
YouTube(Dec. 2, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQfpJfAgIdU.
33Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 35 of 41
15, and it fails to leave open adequate "alternative observation opportunities,
” Reed v. Lieurance,
863 F.3d 1196, 1212 (9th Cir. 2017) .
103. Even ifthe Policy did address a legitimate concern about safety or security at the
Pentagon, it is hopelessly overbroad. It seeks to restrain and chill constitutionally protected
newsgathering and reporting that occurs both on and off Pentagon grounds, including "direct
communications with specific [Department] personnel or general appeals, such as public
advertisements or calls for tips ....
" Ex. A at 12-13; see also, e.g. , Grayned, 408 U.S. at 114 (“A
clear and precise enactment may nevertheless be ‘ overbroad' if, in its reach it prohibits
constitutionally protected conduct.
”) .
104. The Policy's ever-present threat ofPFAC suspension or revocation for “ soliciting,
”
receiving, or publishing information about the Department that has not been officially approved
chills the exercise of First Amendment rights in multiple ways. It imposes a gag on allDepartment
employees' communications with the press outside of pre-approved situations. It also states that
a “security or safety risk” determination—warranting potential suspension or revocation of a
PFAC?can be based on “unauthorized access [or] attempted unauthorized access” of classified
or unclassified information. Ex. A at 12. And it provides for potential suspension or revocation
of a PFAC if a reporter “solicit[s] the disclosure of such information or otherwise encourage[s]
[Department] personnel to violate laws and policies concerning the disclosure of such
information.
" Id.
105. As the Supreme Court has recognized,
“self-censorship w[ill] result,
” if
government is permitted to sanction the use of “routine newspaper reporting techniqu[es].
” The
Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 538 (1989). And“state action to punish the publication of truthful
information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards.
” Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443
34 34Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 36of41
U.S. 97 , 102 ( 1979). The Department has no legitimate justification, let alone a compelling one ,
for the Policy's restrictions on Plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment rights .
106.
In this respect, the Policy violates the First Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
107. Defendants ' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewable under
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
108. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public .
109. The Court should declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy .
COUNT V
adequate pre -deprivation process by allowing Department officials to immediately suspend a
Violation of the Due Process Clause (Lack ofAdequate Pre-Deprivation Process)
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
110. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe preceding paragraphs.
111 . The Policy violates the Due Process Clause because it deprives reporters of
PFAC before providing the PFAC holder any opportunity to be heard .
112.
A PFAC "undoubtedly qualifies as [ a ] liberty [interest] which may not be denied
without due process of law under the [Fifth Amendment ] .” Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130–31 . The
degree of pre-deprivation process to which someone is entitled under the Due Process Clause
"depends upon whether the recipient's interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental
interest in summary adjudication.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 263 (1970 ) ; see Nat'l Council
35Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 37 of 41
of Resistance of Iran v. Dep't of State, 251 F.3d 192, 205-08 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (affording due
process prior to government action depriving organization of"protected property right ").
113. Given PFAC holders' weighty interest in avoiding a loss of access relative to the
government's non-existent interest in abrogating such access, PFAC holders are entitled to
meaningful pre-deprivation process, including notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard
prior to any suspension, at least outside of situations in which the government can credibly
demonstrate a threat ofphysical harm. See Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 267–68. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit
has expressly applied this requirement to the press pass context, holding that prior to a suspension
or revocation, the government must provide “notice ofthe factual bases for denial [of access], an
opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for
denial.
" Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130.
114. In contravention of this requirement, the Policy provides for the immediate
suspension ofaccess prior to any opportunity for a PFAC holder to be heard.
115. In this respect, the Policy violates the Fifth Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
116. Defendants' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
117. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
118. The Court should declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy.
3636Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 38 of 41
COUNT VI
Violation of the First and Fifth Amendments – Unconstitutional
Condition (APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
119 .
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
120.
The Department's requirement that PFAC holders sign an “Acknowledgement "
attesting to their “understanding” ofthe Policy imposes an unconstitutional condition on reporters'
Pentagon access. Ex. A at 14. The Policy requires reporters to confirm they “understand[]" its
vague and standardless provisions and misstatements ofgoverning First Amendment standards.
121 .
The government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his
constitutionally protected ... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.
"
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214 (2013) (omission in
original); see also City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 764 (“[E]ven 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.
").
122. In this respect, the Policy violates the First Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
123. Defendants' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
124. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
125. The Court should therefore declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to
law, enjoin Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing
those provisions ofthe Policy.
37Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 39 of 41
COUNT VII
Violation ofthe Administrative Procedure Act—Arbitrary & Capricious Action
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
126. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs .
127. The Department's adoption of the Policy is arbitrary and capricious in violation of
the Administrative Procedure Act.
128. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has failed to “examine the
relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made.
” Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S. , Inc. v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29 , 43 (1983) (quotation marks omitted). The
Department has not offered , and cannot offer , any “rational connection" between the “safety ”and
"security " of Department personnel and property and the provisions of the Policy targeting First
Amendment-protected speech and newsgathering. Id.; FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556
U.S. 502 , 515 (2009 ) (If an agency “depart [s ] from a prior policy," it “must show that there are
good reasons for the new policy.").
129. Further, in adopting the Policy, the Department failed to consider less burdensome
"alternative way[s ] of achieving [ its ] objectives ." State Farm, 463 U.S. at 48 ; see also, e.g. ,
Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v . FCC, 794 F.2d 737, 746 n.36 (D.C. Cir. 1986 ) ("The failure of
an agency to consider obvious alternatives has led uniformly to reversal .
”
).
130. The Department also took into account impermissible factors in crafting the Policy,
which in purpose and effect discriminates against journalists and news organizations , including
Plaintiffs, on the basis of content and perceived viewpoint . See Dep't of Com . v. New York, 588
U.S. 752 , 785 (2019) (Courts " cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the
explanation given" as they are “not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are
38Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 40 of 41
free.
" (quoting United States v. Stanchich, 550 F.2d 1294, 1300 (2d Cir. 1977) (Friendly, J.))).
Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency, as here,
“relied on factors” it is not
empowered"to consider.
" State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43.
131 .
In this respect, the Policy violates the Administrative Procedures Act.
132.
Defendants' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
133. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
134. The Court should therefore declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to
law, enjoin Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing
those provisions ofthe Policy.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request an order:
a. Declaring that the provisions of the Policy targeting Plaintiffs' protected
newsgathering and speech and all actions implementing those provisions are
unlawful and unconstitutional;
b. Vacating and preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendants from
implementing or seeking to enforce those provisions ofthe Policy;
c. Ordering Defendants to reinstate PFACs formerly held by Barnes and The Times'
other reporters;
d. Enteringjudgment in favor ofPlaintiffs;
e. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorney's fees in accordance with
law; and
f. Issuing any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
39Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page41 of41
Dated : December 4, 2025 Respectfully submitted
,
420440)
Katie Townsend
(D.D.C. Bar No. 1026115
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com
/ s/ Theodore J. Boutrous
333 South Grand Avenue
, Jr.
Theodore J. Boutrous , Jr. (D.D.C. Bar No.
)
Los Angeles , CA 90071-3197
213 ) 229-7000
KTownsend@gibsondunn.com
Lee R. Crain (D.D.C. Bar No. NY0337
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, New York
212)
351-4000
LCrain@gibsondunn.com
(
)
(
Susan Pelletier*
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1700 M Street
, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202)
955-8500
SPelletier@gibsondunn.com
(
Counsel for Plaintiffs The New York Times
*pro hac vice application forthcoming
Company and Julian E. Barnes
40 40Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25
Page 1 of 22
EXHIBIT ACase 1:25-cv-04218
DEPARTMENTOF
WAR
A
UNITED STATES
SOF AMERICA
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25
ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARYOF WAR
1400 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-1400
Page 2 of22
OCT 06 2025
MEMORANDUM FOR SENIOR PENTAGONLEADERSHIP
SUBJECT: Implementation of New Media In-brief
The attached documents implement the Secretary ofWarmemorandum,
"Updated
Physical Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the Pentagon,
" dated May 23, 2025.
All members of the press requesting to be issued a Pentagon Facility Alternate Credential
(PFAC), will be required to read and sign the updated in-brief form outlining information
security requirements, the new physical control measures, and Department of Warexpectations
of their compliance with safety and security requirements. This memorandum and attachments
supersede the "Implementation ofNew Media In-Brief,
" dated September 18, 2025.
The package that will be provided to the member ofthe press as part ofthe in-brief
includes the following:
Pentagon Reservation In-brieffor Media Members
Appendix A,
"Denial, Revocation, or Non-Renewal of Pentagon Facility Alternative
Credentials"
Appendix B,
"Additional Press Identifier Badge"
Appendix C, SW memo,
"Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/Media
Access Within the Pentagon "
Appendix D, graphic showing the areas on the first and second floor of the Pentagon
where press do not require a new escort
Appendix E, graphic showing the route that press can take to access theRiver
Entrance on weekends and holidays
In addition to the Additional Press Identifier Badge depicted in Appendix B, the Pentagon
Force Protection Agency (PFPA ) will begin issuing new PFACs to the press in coming weeks.
Priority of issuance ofthe new PFACS will be to members of the news media, including
equipment crew members, with existing PFACS expiring by October 31 , 2025, and will run
through October 31 , 2025. Beginning November 1 , 2025, PFPA will then commence issuing new
PFACS for members of the news media with existing PFACS expiring after October 31, 2025,
starting with resident members (i.e., those with current authorized workspace in the Pentagon),
followed by non-resident members. The new PFACS will have"PRESS" clearly imprinted on
them in red letters both vertically and horizontally to assist in identifying members of the press
within the Pentagon.
I request your assistance in ensuring that all personnel in your Component are aware of
the physical control measures, including the requirement to provide escorts for media coming
into your spaces for approved interviews. Additionally, if personnel see any news media outside
of the areas depicted in Appendix D that do not have an escort, they should direct them back to
the designated no-escort required areas and alert the Pentagon Press Operations officeat 703-
697-5131.Case 1: 25 -cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of22
My POC for this action is Mr. Christopher Garver, Pentagon Press Operations,
christopher.c.garver.civ@mail.mil or 703-695-3886.
Slee
Sean Parnell
Attachments:
As statedCase 1: 25 -cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 22
PENTAGON RESERVATIONIN-BRIEF FOR MEDIA MEMBERS
NAME: DATE:
The purpose of this briefing is to inform you, as a member of the news media who has
been granted access to the Pentagon Reservation and issued a Pentagon Facilities
Alternative Credential (PFAC), also known as a Department of WarBuilding Pass or a
Pentagon badge, ofthe rules regarding conduct on the Pentagon Reservation. Failure to
abide by these rules may result in suspension or revocation of your PFAC and loss of
access. Additionally, this briefing informs you of the procedures associated with denying,
revoking, or not renewing the issuance of a PFAC, including contesting such a decision
(see Appendix A).
General Security
Members ofthe news media do not possess a legal right to access the Pentagon; rather,
such access is a privilege, subject to the discretion of government authorities and is
regulated by federal law and Department of War policy. Legally, the press has no greater
right of access than the public. While members ofthe news media may be granted access
under certain conditions, this is a privilege extended by the government and not a
constitutionally protected right.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2674, the Secretary of Warhas jurisdiction, custody, and control
over, and responsibility for, the operation, maintenance, and management ofthe Pentagon
Reservation. Under this statute, the Secretary is authorized to prescribe appropriate
regulations to ensure the safe, efficient, and secure operation ofthe Pentagon
Reservation. 32 C.F.R. Part 234 addresses conduct on the Pentagon Reservation, and
section 234.4 ofthis part makes clear that entering or remaining on Pentagon property
without express invitation or consent from those with lawful control is prohibited. The
regulation applies"to all persons entering in or on the property" (see 32 C.F.R. § 234.2),
including members ofthe news media, and provides that individuals who violate a
Department rule or regulation may be ordered to leave or barred from reentry. This
framework establishes that access is not open to the public or the press as a matter of
right but is instead a controlled privilege.
Be alert for suspicious activity and immediately report any unusual activity and/or
circumstances to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) at (703) 697-1001.
Ensure office doors are locked, and property is secure when exiting your office or
cubicle.
Every individual entering the building is subject to random metal detector and X-ray
inspection of personal belongings. Many events, including those involving the Secretary
ofWar , Deputy Secretary of War, or visiting high-level U.S. government officialsor
1Case 1:25 -cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 22
foreign dignitaries, require additional security screenings to which PFACholders would
be subject.
Every individual exiting the building, regardless ofstatus (e.g., military Service member ,
civilian employee, member of the news media), is subject to random checks ofpersonal
belongings.
A property pass is required to remove property from the building that is not readily
identifiable as personal. When you or other members of your organization (e.g.,
technicians, photographers) remove equipment owned by your organization, obtain a
property pass in advance to avoid problems when exiting the building. Property passes
may be obtained in the Pentagon Press Operations (PPO) office, room 2D961, during
normal working hours.
PFAC Security
Maintaining the security ofyour PFACis an individual responsibility.
PFACS must be visible and always worn above the waist while in the Pentagon, except as
noted below during press or other recorded events. Remove or hide your PFAC from
view when not in the Pentagon.
Exceptions for press and other events: Do not have your PFAC visible in the following
circumstances: when present during an on-camera press briefing; when doing a live-shot
in the Pentagon Briefing Room or stand-ups at the Mall Entrance, RiverParade Field, or
on the Connector Parking Lot hill; when covering honor cordon arrival ceremonies; if on-
camera during an open press event on the Pentagon Reservation; or at any other events
that will be recorded via photograph or video. For those with a recording studio in the
Pentagon, do not have your PFAC visible when recording in your studio.
Lost PFACS should be immediately reported to PPO at (703) 697-5131, or, after normal
working hours, to (703) 678-6162 or to OSD.PA.DutyOfficer@mail.mil. Normal
working hours for PPO on non-holiday weekdays are 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time.
Additional Press Identifier Badge
The Additional Press Identifier Badge (APIB) (see Appendix B) must also be visible and
always worn above the waist while in the Pentagon. Note that APIBS serve only as an
additional visual identifier. APIBS are not credentials and do not confer credentialing or
attendance approval for any event.
News Media Physical Security Restrictions on the Pentagon Reservation
EffectiveMay 23, 2025, in accordance with Secretary ofWarMemorandum,
"Updated
Physical Control Measures for Press/Media Access within the Pentagon,
" May 23, 2025
2Case 1: 25 -cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 22
(Appendix C), new physical security restrictions have been enacted for news media,
including those with valid, current PFACS:
News media are not authorized to be anywhere on the 5th Floor, 4th Floor, 3rd Floor,
Basement, or Mezzanine levels, including all corridors and rings, at any time without
an escort from an authorized DoW official.
•
On the 2nd Floor, news media are authorized unescorted access in the Pentagon for the
below areas. For all other areas of the 2nd Floor not included below, except as
otherwise addressed in this in-brief, news media must have an escort from authorized
DoW personnel:
? Rings A through E between Corridors 1 , 10 and 9 (from the Metro Entrance on
the E Ring through the Concourse to the A Ring);
E Ring from the Metro Entrance to Corridor 9;
?
?
E Ring from the River Entrance directly to Corridor 9;
Corridor 9 from the E Ring to the A Ring; 951-999
At the Apex ofCorridors 9/10, the exit to the Courtyard;
?
A Ring from the Apex of Corridors 9/10 to the Mall Corridor between Corridor 6
and 7 and the Mall Corridor to the Mall Entrance for the purpose getting to and
from the Mall Entrance for stand-ups
On the 1st Floor, news media are authorized unescorted access to the Center
Courtyard and the Food Court between Corridors 1 and 10.
See Appendix D for a graphic of the areas where the news media are authorized
unescorted access.
• News media are not authorized access to the Pentagon Athletic Center.
If news media require access to other areas or offices within the Pentagon for in-person
interviews or other engagements, they must be escorted to and from those spaces by
authorized DoW personnel.
As a non-government employee, while a PFAC is your authorized means of entering the
Pentagon, a PFAC does not allow you unfettered access to all of the Pentagon. Youhave
been briefed on the physical control measures for news media access and understand
which areas require escort even though you have a PFAC. When in an area requiring an
escort, you must remain with your escort at all times.
The list of authorized areas is expected to be modified within the next three months, as
DoW intends to upgrade the space used by PFAC holders to a different area that provides
WiFi access and cell phone service, as well as increased space for the expanded press
corps.
Public Release of DoW Information and the Protection of Classified National Security
Information and Controlled Unclassified Information
DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust.
However , DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate
authorizing official before it is released by any military member, DoW civilian employee
or contract employee, even if it is unclassified. The Department of War must safeguard
3Case 1: 25 -cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 22
classified national security information (CNSI), in accordance with Executive Order
13526 and the Atomic Energy Act, and information designated as controlled unclassified
information (CUI), in accordance with Executive Order 13556. CUI may include, but is
not limited to, information protected by the PrivacyAct, information thatis law
enforcement-sensitive, and certain operational security information. Beyond CNSI and
CUI, additional authorities may restrict the disclosure of certain information. Given the
complexities ofthe various laws and policies concerning disclosure of information, Dow
employees are required to have all information cleared for release by an appropriate
authorizing official.
Military members, in particular, face potentially severe consequences for disclosing non-
public information without proper authorization. Article 92 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice imposes criminal liability on military members who violate a lawful
order or regulation.
Both military members and DoW civilian employees also face potential criminal liability
under 18 U.S.C. § 1905 for disclosure of confidential information or under the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a, for knowing and willful unauthorized disclosures.
Only authorized persons who have received favorable determinations of eligibility for
access, signed approved non-disclosure agreements, and have a need-to-know may be
granted access to CNSI. DoW may only provide CUI to individuals when there is a
lawful governmental purpose for doing so.
To be clear, these are the laws and regulations that apply to military members and Dow
civilian employees and contractors. Members of the news media are not required to
submit their writings to DoW for approval. However, they should understand that Dow
personnel may face adverse consequences for unauthorized disclosures (see, e.g. ,
Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 92 ( 10 U.S.C. 892); 18 U.S.C. 1905; 5 U.S.C.
552a(i)). Any solicitation of DoW personnel to commit criminal acts would not be
considered protected activity under the 1st Amendment.
Unauthorized disclosure of CNSI or CUI poses a security risk that could damagethe
national security of the United States and place DoW personnel in jeopardy. To ensure
the safety of U.S. personnel, news media who find themselves in possession of
information that appears to be CNSI or CUI should discuss those materials with the PPO
prior to publication.
Escort Privileges and Procedures
A PFAC authorizes media members who are U.S. citizens to access the Pentagon 24
hours a day and affords escort privileges for up to three visiting media members from the
same media outlet who possess appropriate media credentials.
Visiting media members must be entered into the PFPA VisitorManagement System
(VMS) by the sponsoring U.S. public affairs office no later than one business day in
4Case 1: 25 -cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 8 of 22
advance for U.S. citizens and no later than three business days in advance for non-U.S.
citizens.
A PFAC also affords escort privileges for media members who are U.S. citizens for up to
three visiting family members for special events, such as the Bring YourChild to Work
Day, subject to the approval ofthe Office ofthe Assistant to the Secretary of War for
Public Affairs (OATSW(PA)). Family members 18 years and older must be entered into
the PFPA VisitorManagement System (VMS) by the sponsoring public affairs office no
later than 24 hours in advance for U.S. citizens and no later than 48 hours in advance for
non-U.S. citizens.
PFAC holders escorting other media members or family members must stay with their
visitor(s) at all times. Failure to do so may result in loss of the PFAC issued to you.
PFAC holders who are not U.S. citizens do not have escort privileges.
PFAC Issuance and Renewals
PFACs may be issued to those media members who require regular access to the
Pentagon, who are accessing the building at a minimum monthly visit frequency. See
PPO for the current minimum monthly visit frequency. Youmust continue to meetthe
minimum access frequency requirement to be reissued a PFAC. There are two
probationary periods for an initial PFACissuance.
An initial PFAC expires in three months, on the last day of the third month. You may
submit a request for renewal at the beginning of the month of expiration. Media
members who have met the minimum monthly visit frequency requirements during the
initial three-month probationary period and who have not posed a security or safety risk
to DoW personnel or property will generally be approved for a six-month badge.
The second probationary period is for six months. Requests for renewals of a six-month
PFAC may be submitted at the beginning of the month of expiration. Media members
who havemet the minimum monthly visit frequency requirements during the six-month
probationary period and who have not posed a security or safety risk to DoW personnel
or property during both the initial three-month and subsequent six-month probationary
periods, will generally be approved for a one-year PFAC.
Ifthe two probationary periods have been completed successfully and all requirements
have been met, PFACS will be renewed annually. During annual renewal reviews, if
frequency requirements have not been met, PFACrenewals may be denied or revert to 3-
or 6-month PFACS.
For all renewals, PFACs expire on the last day of the month of expiration. Renewal
requests should be submitted at the beginning ofthe month of expiration, but not before
the start of the month of expiration. Requests received prior to the start of the month will
not be processed until the first business day ofthe month. Due to processing times,
5Case 1:25 -cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 9 of22
renewal requests should be submitted to PPO no later than the middle ofthe month of
expiration to ensure a new badge is available before the old one expires.
Frequency requirements may be waived by OATSW(PA) for a news organization's
equipment technicians and some camera crews, if specifically identified and requested by
the bureau chief . For first-time applications, equipment technicians and camera crews
must still go through the two probationary periods.
PFACs may be denied, revoked, or not renewed if a person is reasonably determined to
pose a security or safety risk to DoW personnel or property, or is not meeting the
frequency requirements. An initial determination of a security or safety risk may result in
an immediate suspension of Pentagon access during the process for making a final
determination. A determination that an individual poses a security risk may be based on
the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure of
CNSI or CUI. See Appendix A for information on the applicable standard and the
process for denying, revoking, or non-renewing a PFAC.
Press Parking
Parking on the Pentagon Reservation is restricted to vehicles with permanent parking
permits, or which have been cleared for temporary parking for specific days. Vehicles
may only be parked in the areas for which they have been cleared.
There is a designated parking area for the news media at the Pentagon. The parking
spaces in two lanes of the Connector Lot, located at intersection of Connector Road and
Boundary Channel Drive, have been reserved for the press (see Appendix E). These
parking spaces are clearly marked with "PRESS" stenciled on the ground.
To access the building, for those with a PFAC, walk north towards Boundary Driveand
go up either the stairs or the ramp to the pedestrian bridge. At the security checkpoint,
swipe your badge and then show it to the PFPA officeron duty. See the route depicted at
Appendix E. The checkpoint opens at 6:00 a.m. and closes at 8:00 p.m. on weekdays.
The checkpoint is closed on weekends and federal holidays. All visiting press must go
through the Visitor Center at the Pentagon Metro Entrance.
There are a limited number ofpermanent "P" parking permits for news media members.
Those who have such permits may park in designated PRESS spaces with their approved
"P "parking permit at any time. News media members with "P" permit are not authorized
to park elsewhere on the Pentagon Reservation, except when provided specific guidance
to do so for special circumstances (e.g., when the Connector Lot is being re-surfaced, or
closed for a special event). For such instances, PPO will provide information on where
you may park.
News media members desiring to be issued a "P" parking pass should contact PPO; there
is usually a waiting list for availablepermit.
6Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 10 of 22
News media without a "P" parking permit may also park in the PRESS area provided
they obtain an approved temporary parking clearance prior to their arrivalat the
Pentagon. News media should contact the PPO Admin Support Team at 703-697-5131 at
least 30 minutes prior to their arrival to request temporary parking clearance, and must
provide the PPO with the following information: date requesting to park if not the day of
the call, driver's name, email, phone number, media outlet, vehicle make, vehicle model,
vehicle color, license plate number, state of registration, vehicle classification
(car/truck/motorcycle/etc.), fuel type (gas/diesel/hybrid/electric), and whether it is a
personal vehicle or a business vehicle. For repeat visits using the same vehicle, press
need only provide date, name, and vehicle license plate. For parking on weekends, call
the PPO Duty Officer at 703-678-6162.
News media may request temporary parking clearance for up to 5 days per month. Press
can request an exception from the PPO for more days only on a case-by-case basis.
Overnight parking at the Pentagon is not permitted for members of the news media.
Overnight parking is considered parking for more than 24 hours at a time.
Ifyou are issued a “P” parking permit, you will be required to return it to the PPO upon
completion of your media/press duties, or upon the expiration of the “P” parking permit.
Access on Weekends
Ifnews media need to access the Pentagon on weekends, holidays, or when the pedestrian
bridge between the Connector Lot and River Entrance is closed, news media may parkin
the press parking area and walk along Connector Road to River Road, go through a
pedestrian turnstile, and continue walking up the River Road to Mug Handle to get to the
River Entrance, which is open 24/7. See Appendix E for a depiction of the route. Note
that those without a "P" parking permit must still provide their vehicle information tothe
PPO Duty Officer at 703-678-6162.
Mall Entrance Temporary Parking
News media crews that are doing a stand-up at the Mall Entrance location may request
Mall parking. Mall Entrance parking is by reservation only. News media should contact
the PPO Support Team at 703-697-5131 at least two hours prior to their arrival to request
Mall Entrance parking clearance and must provide the same information as for regular
press parking (see above) with the addition oftime and arrival. Note that due to demand,
there may be times when parking in the Mall Entrance lot is restricted to four hours per
day. Visitingpress who need to be at the Pentagon all day should park either in regular
press parking or at the Mall Entrance. Parking at the Mall Entrance is by numbered
spaces ; PPO will provide the numbered parking space for each vehicle when Mall
Entrance Parking is requested.
Filming /Photography
7Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 11 of 22
Filming, photography, and audio recording on the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited,
unless approved in advance. In accordance with 32 CFR § 234.15 — Use of visual
recording devices:
(a) The use of cameras or other visual recording devices on the Pentagon Reservation is
prohibited, unless the use ofsuch items are approved by the Pentagon Force Protection
Agency,the Installation Commander, or the Office ofthe Assistant to the Secretary of
Warfor Public Affairs.
(b ) It shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or
graphical representation ofthe Pentagon Reservation without first obtaining permission
ofthe Pentagon Force Protection Agency or the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of
Warfor Public Affairs.
Note that this prohibition applies to the use of apps on mobile devices that utilize the
front-facing camera lens, such as “ FaceTime” or the taking of"selfies.
"
News media visiting the National Pentagon 9/11 Memorial in their personal capacity, not
as a member of the press, may take photos using their personal devices. Filming or
photography in the Memorial for a news media interview or to obtain b-roll requires an
exception, as described below under Filming/Photography Exception Requests.
Filming/Photography Pre-Approved Exceptions
News media do not need to obtain permission in advance for filming, photography,or
audio recording in the following circumstances:
Press events in the Pentagon Briefing Room.
•
Press events announced by OATSW (PA), the public affairs officeforthe Officeof
the Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the public affairs offices of the Military
Departments or Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, that are not located in the Pentagon
Briefing Room. Examples would include honor cordons and events at the Pentagon
River TerraceParade Field, the Pentagon Auditorium, and the Pentagon Center
Courtyard.
•
Unilateral news media stand-ups in the Pentagon Briefing Room, if approved, at the
designated stand-up location outside the Mall Entrance, or live or recorded shots
inside the network studio rooms in the Correspondent's Corridor.
•
Recording audio of off -camera interviews approved and monitored by authorized
DoW public affairs personnel.
Filming/Photography Exception Requests
The filming /photography exception requests discussed below require public affairs escort
from either OATSW (PA) or the sponsoring public affairs office, regardless of whether
the news media involved have a current PFAC or are visiting press.
News media desiring to obtain b-roll or stock footage or photos of the Pentagon
interior or exterior must submit a request to PPO a minimum of one week in advance
8Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 12 of 22
to obtain permission. If this request is in conjunction with a press eventsponsored by
a public affairs office other than OATSW (PA), submit the requestthrough the
sponsoring public affairs office. Requests should include date and times and either
the exact location or sufficient information for the public affairs officeto determine
the best available locations for the footage or photos.
News media desiring to film DoW officials standing or walking in a corridor in
conjunction with an interview must submit a request through the sponsoring public
affairs office to PPO a minimum of one week in advance to obtain permission.
Request must include date, time, and exact location.
0
News media desiring to photograph DoW officials in their offices or conference
rooms in conjunction with an interview must submit their request through the
sponsoring public affairs office to the security manager for that space.
News media desiring to obtain b-roll or interview or film anyone inside the National
Pentagon 9/11 Memorial must submit a DD Form 2798,
"Application/Permit for Use
ofSpace on the Pentagon Reservation,
" at least one week in advance to the Pentagon
Facility Operations Division Special Events Office at whs.pentagon.fsd.mbx.pbmo-
special-events@mail.mil. Youcan download a DD Form 2798 here:
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/forms/dd2500 2999/DD2798/
Filming/Photography from the Press Parking Area
News media desiring to do a stand-up or film from the grassy hill next to the press
parking area (see Appendix E) should submit a request to PPO no later than three hours
in advance. Requests should include the date, time, and the number of personnel in the
crew. Once approved, filming from the grassy hill does not require public affairs escort.
Pandemics, National Health Emergencies, and Other Contingencies
During a declared pandemic or national health emergency, the DoW will protect the
workforce while continuing to perform its national security mission. Protecting the
workforce may entail the adoption ofpersonal protective measures, restrictions on access
to the Pentagon for essential functions only, symptom screenings, or other measures.
In the eventofa declared pandemic or national health emergency, news media entering
the Pentagon are expected to follow the same personal protective measures as DoW
personnel and as required by Health Protection Condition (HPCON) announcements.
Failure or refusal to comply may result in a loss of access, ranging from temporary
suspension to revocation of PFACS.
Additionally, news media are not considered essential personnel. During a declared
pandemic or national health emergency, news media may temporarily be denied physical
access to the Pentagon.
9Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 13 of 22
During other general emergency contingencies (e.g., fires, active shooters, natural
disasters, utility outages), news media physical access to the Pentagon may be
temporarily curtailed or denied.
Security Risks
A PFAC may be denied, revoked, or not renewed ifa person is reasonably determined to
pose a security or safety risk to DoW personnel or property, in accordance with the
standards and procedures outlined in Appendix A. Such an initial determination may
result in an immediate suspension of your Pentagon access while the procedures
preceding a final determination are pending.
This in-brief and its Appendices address DoW policy and the potential bases for such a
determination and do not prohibit you as a PFAC holder from engaging in
constitutionally protected journalistic activities, such as investigating, reporting, or
publishing stories.
Such determination may be based on factors including, but not limited to, the
unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure of CNSI
or CUI, convictions for national defense offenses, threats, or unsafe activities (as listed in
Appendix A). Such a determination is based on a reasonable assessment informed by the
unique facts and circumstances of each case--such as whether the conduct is willful or
repeated, versus isolated and unintentional— and incorporates due process ( e.g., written
notice ofthe basis, a 30-day appeal period, an opportunity for personal appearance, and a
final, reviewable determination).
For clarity, the receipt of unsolicited CNSI or CUI and its subsequent publication is
generally protected by the First Amendment and would not, on its own, normally trigger
denial, revocation, or non-renewal of a PFAC. However, if you solicit the disclosure of
such information or otherwise encourage DoW personnel to violate laws and policies
concerning the disclosure of such information, such conduct may weigh in the
consideration of whether you pose a security or safety risk.
There is a critical distinction between lawfully requesting information from the
government and actively soliciting or encouraging government employees to breakthe
law. The First Amendment does not permit journalists to solicit government employees
to violate the law by providing confidential government information. The press's rights
are not absolute and do not override the government's compelling interest in maintaining
the confidentiality ofsensitive information. Soliciting or encouraging government
employees to break the law falls outside the scope of protected newsgathering activities.
Solicitation may include direct communications with specific DoW personnel or general
appeals, such as public advertisements or calls for tips encouraging DoW employees to
share non-public DoW information. For example, an advertisement or social media post
by an individual journalist or media outlet that directly targets DoW personnel to disclose
10Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 14 of 22
non-public information without proper authorization would constitute a solicitation that
could lead to revocation.
Additionally, publication that recklessly endangers American lives could factor into an
assessment of whether continued unescorted access to the Pentagon poses a security risk.
All determinations under this policy are undertaken on a case-by-case basis reviewingthe
totality of the circumstances to ensure the policy is narrowly tailored to safeguard
sensitive information without unduly restricting speech and are informed by factors such
as convictions for national defense offenses, threats, or unsafe activities ( as listed in
Appendix A). Moreover, determinations will take into account whether such conduct is
willful or repeated, as opposed to isolated and unintentional.
No WaiverofRights
Nothing in this document requires you to waive any constitutional rights. This in-brief
constitutes a description ofDoW policies.
11Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 15 of 22
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AUTHORITY: 10 U.S.C. 113 , Secretary of Defense; 42 U.S.C. Chapter 23, Development and Control ofAtomic
Energy; Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information; Executive Order 13556, Controlled
Unclassified Information; 32 C.F.R. Part 234, Conduct on the Pentagon Reservation ; DoD Directive 5122.05, Assistant
to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (ATSD(PA)).
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: To inform members ofthe news media being granted access to the Pentagon Reservation
and issued a Pentagon Alternative Facilities Alternative Credential (PFAC) ofthe rules regarding conducton the
Pentagon Reservation and the rules and procedures concerning termination of such access.
ROUTINE USE(S): In certain circumstances, it may be necessary to disclose this record outside ofthe Department of
Defense. For example, this record may be disclosed to a component of the Department ofJustice for the purposeof
representing the Department of Defense, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential
litigationto which the record is pertinent; orto an appropriate law enforcement authority when the record, either alone
or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law , whether criminal, civil, or
regulatory in nature. For a complete list of routine uses, referto the applicable system ofrecords notice: DPAD 12.0,
DoD Media Pool and Pentagon Correspondent Files, at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/03/2021-09211/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records
DISCLOSURE: Voluntary ; however, failureto complete this acknowledgement may result in limiting DoD's ability
to grant access to the Pentagon Reservation.
NAME: DATE :
Acknowledgement
I have received, read, and understand the "Pentagon Reservation In-brief for Media
Members,
" with Appendices A-E, including Appendix A,which addresses the standard
and procedures for denying, revoking, or not renewing a PFAC. The in-briefdescribes
DoW policies and procedures. My signature represents my acknowledgement and
understanding ofsuch DoW policies and procedures, even if I do not necessarily agree
with such policies and procedures. Signing this acknowledgment does not waive any
rights I may haveunderlaw.
Signature-- Administering Official New Badge Expiration Date_
Email address
Workphone Cell phone
Signature-- Media Member
14 12Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 16 of 22
APPENDIX A: DENIAL, REVOCATION, OR NON -RENEWAL OF PENTAGON
FACILITY ALTERNATIVECREDENTIALS.
A. Reason for Denial, Revocation, or Non-Renewal. The Director, PFPA, or designee, shall
deny, revoke, or refuse to renew the PFAC of any person reasonably determined to pose a
security or safety risk to DoW personnel or property. Persons presumed to present such a risk
include, but are not limited to, those who have been convicted of any offense involving:
(1) National defense (such as treason, sabotage, terrorism, or espionage).
(2) The use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person
(such as murder, manslaughter, assault, rape, robbery, or kidnapping) or conduct that presents a
serious potential risk of physical injury to another (such as arson, burglary, or the unlawful
possession of explosives or firearms).
(3) Unlawful manufacturing or distribution of drugs.
(4) Threatening or harassing communications.
(5) Theft, embezzlement, trespassing, or property destruction.
(6) Fraud or deceit.
( 7) Prostitution or other prohibited sexual conduct.
(8) Engaging in operations and activities that are unsafe, fail to abate an identified
hazard, endanger others, or create a condition immediately dangerous to life health.
(9) Unprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations.
Additionally, actions other than conviction may be deemed to pose a security or safety risk, such
as discussed in the Pentagon Reservation In-Brief for Media Members
B. Procedures for Denial, Revocation, or Non-Renewal. If the Director, PFPA, or designee,
anticipates that a PFAC might be denied, revoked, or not renewed, the applicant or his or her
authorizing official shall be notified in writing by the Director, PFPA, or designee, ofthe basis
for the proposed denial, in as much detail as security considerations permit. When an
individual's PFAC has been denied, revoked, not renewed, or suspended for the reasons outlined
above, both unescorted and escorted access to any DoW facility is terminated. This section does
not apply to journalists who decide not to renew for reasons unrelated to any security or safety
risk, such as a change in employment or assignment.
(1) The notification ofproposed denial, revocation, or non-renewal shall inform the
applicant ofthe right to respond to and rebut any factual basis supporting the proposed denial,
revocation, or non-renewal.Case 1 : 25 - cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 17 of 22
(2) The applicant will be allowed 30 days from the mailing date of the proposed denial,
revocation ,ornon
-renewal notification to make an appeal appointment with the Director,
PentagonAccess Control Branch (PACB).
days, an extension for one additional 30 - day period will be granted on
request to PACB for such an extension.
denial, revocation, or non
insufficientto substantiate the issuance of a DoW Building Pass , the applicant will be allowed 30
(3) If the applicantor
representative is unable to schedule an appointment within 30
( 4) Ifmitigating information is presented at the appointment to substantiate a reversal of
-renewal , the applicant may receive a DoW Building Pass at that time.
(5) Ifno mitigating information is presentedor if information is presented but is
days from the appeal appointment to respond in writing to the Director,PFPA,or designee . The
will consist of any explanationor
rebuttal considered appropriate by the applicant and
representative under oath or
affirmation.
receipt of a telephone
must be signed by the applicantor
(6 ) At the time ofthe filing of the writtenresponse to the notification ofthe proposed
denial, revocation , or non
-renewal , the applicantor representative may request, and shall
normally be granted, the opportunity to make a personal appearance before the Director , PFPA,
or designee, to personally support his or
her eligibility for a pass and to rebut or
explain the
factual basis for the proposed denial
. The Director, PFPA, or designee, shall exercise final
review authority in the matter .
(7) On the basis ofthe written or oral response to the proposed denial , revocation , or
- renewal , the Director,PFPA, or designee, shall determine whether further inquiry
investigation on the issues raised is necessary.
(a) If a decision is made that no such inquiry is necessary , a final decision shall be
response
or
non
issued.
(b ) If a decision is made that further inquiry is necessary, the Director, PFPA, or
designee, shall conduct such inquiry as deemed appropriate
(8 ) Upon
receipt ofthe applicant's writtenor oralresponse explainingor rebutting the
factual basis for the proposed denial, revocation, or non
-renewal, and upon completion ofany
additional inquiry , a final decision shall be expeditiously made by the Director , PFPA, or
designee. If a final adverse decision is reached , the applicant shall be notified ofthe final
decision in writing . The notification shall state, as precisely as security considerations permit,
the factual basis for the denial.
.
(9) The decision of the Director,PFPA,or designee , under this section shall constitute a
final agency decision. This section does not confer any rights on any individualor
entity and is
intendedonly as internal guidance for the administration ofthe Department of War.Badge
Identifier
Press
Additional
BACK
PRESS
AppendixB
Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1
Filed 12/04/25 Page 18 of 22
FRONT
PRESSCase 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 19 of 22
DEPARTME
OF DEFENSE
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000
MAY 23 2025
MEMORANDUM FOR RESIDENT AND VISITING PRESS ASSIGNED TO THE
PENTAGON
SUBJECT: Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within thePentagon
References: (a) DoDM 5200.01,
"Volume 3 , DoD Information Security Program:
Protection ofClassified Information,
" February 24, 2012
(b) Office ofSecretary of Defense, Chief of Staff Memorandum: "Efforts to
Combat Unauthorized Disclosures,
" March 21, 2025
The Department ofDefense's (DoD) highest priority is the defense of our Nation and our
national security. Per reference (a), the protection of classified national intelligence
information (CNSI) and sensitive, unclassified information, including information deemed
critical to operations security (OPSEC), remains an unwavering imperative for the Department.
Per reference (b), the Chief of Staffto the Secretary of Defense recently directed an
investigation into unauthorized disclosures.
While the Department remains committed to transparency, the Department is equally
obligated to protect CNSI and sensitive information-the unauthorized disclosure ofwhich
could put the lives of U.S. Service members in danger. To attain professional balance between
press access and OPSEC, the following updated security measures for resident and visiting press
are needed to reduce the opportunities for in-person inadvertent and unauthorized disclosures.
Effective immediately, the Secretary of Defense directs the following control measures
for all resident and visiting press who have been issued a Pentagon Facilities Alternate
Credential (PFAC ) for the Pentagon:
1. Press/media are not authorized entry/access to the Secretary ofDefense physical
officespaces located on the 3rd floor, ring E, between corridors 9 and 8 withoutan
official approval and escort from the Office ofthe Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs (OATSD (PA )).
2. Press/media are not authorized entry/access to the Joint Staffphysical officespaces
located on the 2nd floor between corridors 9 and 7 , rings A through E, without
official approval from the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs
(OSD(PA )) and escort by personnel from the Joint Staff Public Affairs Office.
3. Press/media are only authorized unescorted access in the Pentagon on rings A
through E on the 2nd floor of the Pentagon between the "Metro Entrance" at
corridors 1 and 10 and the"RiverEntrance" at corridors 8 and 9 via and to the
Pentagon Courtyard and Food Court (located between corridor 1 and 10 on the 1st
Floor). The exception is noted in paragraph 2 (above).
4. If press require access to other areas/offices within the Pentagon for"in-person"
OSD005511-25/CMDC07129-25Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 20 of 22
PARKING ENTRANCE First Figns
NORTH
Pentagon2nd
Floor
Floor
ENTRANCE Second
RIVER
Floor
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR
MALL
Second
CORRIDOR8
0
C
CORRIDOR
APEA7
A
-
CORRIDOR 6
3
APEX 9.
CORRIDOR
APEX 5-8 CENTER COURTYARD0
CORRIDOR B
5
APEX 1-2 CORRIDOR
APEX 3-4
B
CORRIDOR
C
CORRIDOR
2
4
CORRIDOR
3
AppendixD
areas
indicate
areas
Yellow
without
allowed
are
press
where
TERRACE
SOUTH
Floor
PARKING ENTRANCE Second
SOUTH
TERRACE
SOUTH
escort.
10
D
BUS
-
METROCase 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 21 of 22
Floor
Pentagon1st
Flon-
NORTH PARKING ENTRANCE First
ENTRANCE Second Floor
RIVER
ENTRANCE
Floor
CORRIDOR8
MALL
Second
CORRIDOR
D
C
CORRIDOR9
B
E
APEX 7-8
0
CORRIDOR 6 9
A
APEX 5-6
5 CORRIDOR B 0
A
without
4 CORRIDOR
areas
indicate
allowed
AppendixD
are
areas
Yellow
press
where
escort.
APEX 3-4
CORRIDOR
3
APIEX 9-10
CORRIDOR 10
CENTER COURTYARD0
APEX 1-2 CORRIDOR 1
B
C
CORRIDOR
D
2
E
TERRACE
SOUTH
Floor
PARKING ENTRANCE Second
SOUTH
TERRACE
SOUTH
BUS
METRO-oundaryDr
Case 1:25 - cv-04218
Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page22 of22
to
access
on
bridge
routeto
point
Entrance
Personnel
control
pedestrian
Weekday
River
National
Til
Scenic
BoundaryDr
ConnectorRd
Heritage
Potomac
BoundaryDr
access
point
Personnel turnstileat
vehicle
control
route
parking Weekend
Press
Entrance
River
O
LP HRP
HRP
ConnectorRd
Grassy Hill ConnectorRd
Hwy
Richmond
110
110
0
0
HRPL
RiverRd
RiverR
ConnectorRd
E
Appendix
IvarRd
Mug
Entrance CVS
Pharmacy
River
Starbucks
Pentagon
America
ort
store
uvenir
LayersCase 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-2 Filed 12/04/25
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT BCase 1 : 25 - cv- 04218 Document 1-2 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3
REPORTERS
COMMITTEE
FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
By email
September 22, 2025
PO Box 34176
Washington, DC 20043
( 202 ) 795-9300 www.rcfp.org
Sean Parnell
Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs
PRESIDENT
Bruce D. Brown
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington , D.C. 20301-1400
STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIR
VICE CHAIR
MARGARET LOW
WBUR
SECRETARY-TREASURER
STEPHEN J. ADLER
MASSIMO CALABRESI
The New York Times .
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
DAVID BOARDMAN
Temple University
Re: Implementation of New Media
- Brief.
Dear Mr. Parnell :
regarding your memorandum dated September 18 to senior Pentagon
leadership , which implements a new in - brief form for journalists who hold
Gibson, Dunn& Crutcher LLP
a Pentagon Facility Alternate Credential (PFAC). We see many
GAIL GOVE
NBCUniversal
ambiguities in the language ofthe in - brief form that would make it
LAURA HANDMAN
Davis Wright Tremaine
difficult – if not impossible – for news organizations to decide whether to
In
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press writes
THOMAS C. RUBIN
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR.
-
DIEGO IBARGÜEN
sign the form . We urge the Department to pause implementation of the in-
Hearst
brief process until all of its ambiguous terms are clarified and respectfully
OpenAI
request a meeting with Pentagon leadership to discuss these issues.
MARTY BARON
Ret. , The Washington Post
WOLF BLITZER
The Reporters Committee is the nation's largest non
-profit
CNN
providing free legal services for journalists and news organizations across
SEWELL CHAN
USC Annenberg
LYNETTE CLEMETSON
University of Michigan
the country. Reporters Committee attorneys frequently represent
coalitions of major news organizations in matters involving reporters'
access to government facilities, such as the Pentagon.
Brunswick Group
MANNY GARCIA
JASON CONTI
Dow Jones NIKHIL DEOGUN
EMILIO GARCIA-RUIZ
The San Francisco Chronicle
POLITICO
ALEX GIBNEY
JOSH GERSTEIN
Freelance Journalist
KAREN KAISER
JAMES GRIMALDI
Jigsaw Productions
National Catholic Reporter
The Associated Press
KIMBRIELL KELLY
Chicago Public Media
ALEX MACCALLUM
CNN
MATT MURRAY
The Washington Post
NORMAN PEARLSTINE
New York, New York
CHARLIE SAVAGE
The New York Times
NABIHA SYED
Mozilla
NPR Affiliations appear only forpurposes ofidentification .
ADAM SYMSON
The E.W. Scripps Company
MATT THOMPSON
The New York Times
VICKIE WALTON-JAMES
While these are illustrative , not exhaustive, ofthe many
we have heard, we note three questions relating to the "Pentagon
Reservation In
-Brief for Media Members ,
with your implementation memorandum to Pentagon leadership. These
questions arise from discussions the Reporters Committee has had with
leading news organizations with Pentagon credentials seeking clarity
by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released , even if it is
concerns
" as circulated on September 19
about the meaning of the in-brief and its implications for their journalists.
First, the section of the in-brief entitled “Public Release of DoW
Information and the Protection of Classified National Security Information
and Controlled Unclassified Information " does not make clear whether
those paragraphs describe the policies governing Pentagon personnel or
purport to create obligations for reporters who hold a PFAC. The
sentences that read “DoW information must be approved for public release
unclassified" and that “[u] nauthorized disclosure of CNSI or CUI poses a
security risk that could damage the security of the United States” would
present grave First Amendment concerns if the in-brief were construed toCase 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-2 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 3
require that reporters holding a PFAC agree to such a pre- authorization requirement or
endorse such a view.
Second, the in-brief includes a series of“Acknowledgments” on page nine that
the PFAC holder must “agree to abide by,
" one ofwhich reads: “I acknowledge that such
a determination [that a person poses a security or safety risk] may be based on the
unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure" of
classified national security information or controlled unclassified information. That
sentence can also be read in two ways – that the PFAC holder is acknowledging that he
-
or she will not take those actions, or that the PFAC holder is merely acknowledging that
this is the Pentagon's policy. The former meaning would likewise pose serious First
Amendment concerns and would make news reporting by PFAC holders unworkable in
practice given the uncertainty over which disclosures could lead to a PFAC revocation.
The latter meaning would not carry those risks to the same extent. As written, news
organizations cannot know which obligations they would be agreeing to.
Finally, the in-brief does not make clear whether a PFAC holder's disclosure of
classified national security information or controlled unclassified information “ shall” or
"may "
-in the Department's discretion – result in the denial or revocation of a PFAC. If
the latter, the in-brief does not explain what standards would guide the Department in
deciding whether a particular disclosure might justify denial or revocation. As with the
preceding examples, without that clarity, news organizations cannot understand what they
are acknowledging or agreeing to by signing the in-brief .
We believe that an addendum to the in-brief - or another memo from your office
- addressing these and the other ambiguities well in advance of any deadline to apply for
renewal of a PFAC is warranted, as is the pause in implementation we suggest above.
We also request a meeting with Pentagon leadership to seek clarity on these and other
issues with the new media in-brief as soon as practicable.
The Reporters Committee's Vice President of Policy Gabe Rottman is at your
disposal to help coordinate a meeting and answer any other questions. He can be reached
at grottman@rcfp.org and 202-795-9300.
Sincerely,
Reporters Committee
for Freedom of the Press
CC: Susan Gough
Pentagon Press Operations
2Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-3 Filed 12/04/25
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT CDEPARTCase 1:25-cv-04218
Document 1-3 Filed 12/04/25 Page2 of4
EWAR
ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARYOF WAR
1400 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON , D.C. 20301-1400
NITED STATE ON
AMERICA
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
September 24, 2025
Reporters Committee for Freedom ofthe Press
PO Box 34176
Washington, DC 20043
Attn: Bruce D. Brown, President
Re: Implementation ofNew Media In-Brief
Dear Mr. Brown:
We are in receipt of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press' letter dated
September 22, 2025, regarding the new in-brief form for journalists holding a Pentagon Facilities
Alternate Credential (PFAC). We appreciate the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
engaging directly on this matter and value your role in advocating for journalists and news
organizations. Yourinput helps ensure that our policies support both national security and a free
press, and we are committed to addressing your concerns with clarity and transparency.
The in-briefform outlines Department of War(DoW) information securityrequirements,
physical control measures, and expectations for compliance with safety and security protocols. It
does not impose restrictions on journalistic activities, such as investigating, reporting, or
publishing stories-rights unequivocally protected by the First Amendment. Instead, it informs
PFAC holders of DoW's internal policies and the processes for managing building access, which
is a privilegeextended to facilitate responsible coverage, not a right to unfettered entry and access.
To address your illustrative concerns, I will respond to each in turn, quoting directly from the in-
briefform and related documents where relevant .
First, regardingthe section entitled "PublicReleaseofDoW Information and theProtection
of Classified National Security Information and Controlled Unclassified Information,
" this
language describes policies governing DoW personnel and does not purport to create obligations
for reporters holding a PFAC. As stated in the in-brief:
DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust.
However , DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate
authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified. The Department ofWar
must safeguard classified national security information (CNSI) , in accordance with
Executive Order 13526 and the Atomic Energy Act, and information designated as
controlled unclassified information ( CUI), in accordance with Executive Order 13556.Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-3 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of4
Only authorized persons who have received favorable determinations of eligibility for
access, signed approved non-disclosure agreements, and have a need-to-know may be
granted access to CNSI. DoW may only provide CUI to individuals when there isa lawful
governmental purposefordoingso.
Unauthorized disclosure of CNSI or CUI poses a security risk that could damage the
national security ofthe United States and place DoW personnel in jeopardy.
This section outlines the responsibilities of DoW servicemembers and civilian employees
under established DoW Instructions, such as DoD Instruction 5230.09 ("Clearance of DoD
Information for Public Release") and DoD Instruction 5230.29 ("Security and PolicyReview of
DoD Information for Public Release"), which mandate pre-publication reviews through official
channels to prevent unauthorized disclosures by government personnel. It does not require
reporters to seek DoW approval for their stories or endorse any viewpoint on pre -authorization.
Journalists remain free to gather information through legitimate means, such as Freedom of
Information Act requests, official briefings, or unsolicited tips, and to publish as they deem
newsworthy. The focus is on preventing active solicitation that encourages Dow personnel to
violate these disclosure rules, as such conduct is not always protected by the First Amendment.
Second, the series of "Acknowledgments" on page nine of the in-brief, which PFAC
holders must "agree to abide by,
" are intended as acknowledgments of DoW's policies and
potential grounds for discretionary action, not as commitments by reporters to refrain from
newsgathering or disclosure. Specifically, the acknowledgment at issue states:
Iacknowledge that such a determination [that a person poses a securityor safety risk]may
be based on the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized
disclosure ofCNSI orCUI.
This is the latter interpretation you describe: an acknowledgment ofDoW's policy, not a
pledge by the PFAC holder to avoid such actions. It informs credential holders of the potential
bases for a reasonable determination of risk, ensuring transparency about the process. Receipt of
unsolicited information and subsequent publication-even of CNSI or CUI-is generally
constitutionally protected and would not normally, on its own, trigger revocation. However, in
rare, extreme cases where publication recklessly endangers American lives, it could factorintoan
assessment of whether continued unescorted access to the Pentagon poses a security risk.
Moreover, if a reporter solicits the gathering and providing of such information for use in the
reporter's workor is otherwise aware of and encourages the actions, such actions mayalsoweigh
inthis consideration. This aligns with First Amendment precedent, including that which holds that
the First Amendment does not immunize conduct facilitating legal violations, while preserving
broad protections for publication.
Finally, the in-brief does not mandate ( "shall") that a PFAC holder's disclosure of CNSI
or CUI result in denial or revocation; rather, it "may " do so in the Department's discretion,based
on a reasonable determination of security or safety risk as informed by the unique facts and
circumstances of each application. As detailed in Appendix A to the in-brief :Case 1:25 - cv-04218 Document 1-3 Filed 12/04/25 Page4of4
The Director, PFPA , or designee , shall deny, revoke, or
refuse to renew the PFAC of any
person reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk to DoW personnel or
property.
office to coordinate a convenient time .
This determination is informed by factors such as convictions
national
defense offenses ,
threats, or unsafe activities (listed in AppendixA) . All decisions incorporatedue process : written
notice of the basis (as security permits) , a 30 -day appeal period, an opportunity for personal
appearance, and a final , reviewable determination . This process ensures actions are narrowly
tailored, not arbitrary , and support the government's compelling interest in safeguarding sensitive
information without unduly restricting speech.
Itrust that these clarifications address your concerns and confirm that the in
-brief does not
infringe upon First Amendment protections. As requested, we welcome a meeting with your
organization's leadership to discuss these and other issues. Please have Mr. Rottman contact my
for
CC: Sincerely,
SpeeSean Parnell
Gabe Rottman, Vice President ofPolicy
Susan Gough, Pentagon Press OperationsCase 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-4 Filed 12/04/25
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT DCase 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-4 Filed 12/04/25
DELIBERATIVE/PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT // VERSION 8
Page 2 of 4
NAME:
DATE:
Acknowledgements
Please read and initial each of the below:
I understand that PFACs are extended as a courtesy to media members who work
full-time in the Pentagon or who meet the minimum monthly visit frequency. PFACs
may be revoked or not renewed for individuals who do not meet the frequency
requirement.
I understand that securing my PFAC is my responsibility. I understand that I must
immediately report a lost PFAC.
I understand that I must wear my PFAC and APIB above my waist at all times.
I understand that I and my belongings are subject to inspection when on the
Pentagon reservation.
I understand that I am responsible for the physical security of my work area,
including ensuring that doors are locked and properly secured, where applicable.
I understand that as a non-government employee, while a PFAC is my authorized
means ofentering the Pentagon, a PFAC does not allow me unfettered access to all of the
Pentagon. I have been briefed on the physical control measures for news media access
and understand which areas require escort eventhough I have a PFAC. I acknowledge
that I must obtain an escort for the required escort areas and must remain with my escort
at all times in those areas.
I understand that a property pass is required to remove property from the building
that is not readily identifiable as personal. Property passes may be obtained from
Pentagon Press Operations, room 2D961 , during normal working hours.
I understand that any type of visual or audio recording on the Pentagon Reservation,
including the use of a cell phone camera, is prohibited, unless approved in advance, in
accordance with 32 CFR § 234.15.
I acknowledge receipt and briefing of the “Pentagon Reservation In-brieffor Media
Members,
" with Appendices A-E, including Appendix A, which includes the standard
and procedures for denying, revoking, or not renewing a PFAC.
I acknowledge that a PFAC may be denied, revoked, or not renewed if a person is
reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk to DoW personnel or property, in
accordance with the standards and procedures outlined in Appendix A.Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-4 Filed 12/04/25
DELIBERATIVE/PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT //VERSION 8
Page 3 of 4
I understand that such an initial determination may result in an immediate
suspension of my Pentagon access while the procedures preceding a final determination
are pending.
I acknowledge that this is an acknowledgment of DoW policy and the potential
bases for such a discretionary determination only, and does not impose any obligations on
me as a PFAC holder to refrain from constitutionally protected journalistic activities,
such as investigating, reporting, or publishing stories.
I acknowledge that such a determination may be based on factors including, but
not limited to, improper attempts at unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure of
CNSI or CUI, but that any such determination is discretionary ("may,
" not " shall" ) , based
on a reasonable assessment informed by the unique facts and circumstances of each case,
and incorporating due process (e.g. , written notice of the basis, a 30-day appeal period, an
opportunity for personal appearance, and a final, reviewable determination). For clarity, I
acknowledge that the receipt of unsolicited CNSI or CUI and its subsequent publication
is generally protected by the First Amendment and would not, on its own, normally
trigger denial, revocation, or non-renewal of a PFAC. However, if I solicit the gathering
and providing of such information for use in my work or am otherwise aware ofand
encourage actions that violate DoW disclosure rules, such conduct may weigh in the
consideration of whether I pose a security or safety risk. Solicitation may include direct
communications with specific DoW personnel or general appeals, such as public
advertisements or calls for tips encouraging DoW employees to share CNSI or CUI. For
example an advertisement or post that states that a reporter or outlet “wants to hear from
Defense Department and national security officials about changes within the Pentagon
and throughout the U.S. military and intelligence community. Youcan contact our
reporters by email or Signal encrypted message...
" would constitute a solicitation that
could lead to revocation. Additionally, in rare, extreme cases where publication
recklessly endangers American lives, it could factor into an assessment ofwhether I pose
a security risk. All determinations will be narrowly tailored to safeguard sensitive
information without unduly restricting speech, and are informed by factors such as
convictions for national defense offenses, threats, or unsafe activities (as listed in
Appendix A). Moreover, determinations will take into account whether such conduct is
willful or repeated, as opposed to isolated and unintentional.
I acknowledge that nothing in this document requires me to waive or give up any
constitutional rights, that this form constitutes an acknowledgment ofDoW policies
rather than an agreement to them, and that access to the Pentagon is a privilege, not a
right, which may be revoked by the Department of War.. I understand that such an initial
determination may result in an immediate suspension of my Pentagon access while the
procedures preceding a final determination are pending. I acknowledge that such a
determination may be based on the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access,
or unauthorized disclosure of CNSI or CUI.
2Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-4 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 4
DELIBERATIVE/PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT // VERSION 8
I acknowledge that nothing in this form constitutes an admission or concession that
the disclosure of CNSI or CUI damages national security, nor does it imply liability
under the Espionage Act or any other law.
I acknowledge that during a declared pandemic or national health emergency, I
must follow the same personal protective measures as prescribed for Pentagon personnel
when entering the building. This may include not entering the building if I am not
feeling well or am experiencing symptoms. I acknowledge that I may be randomly
selected for screening for symptoms or the pandemic disease when entering the building
or may be required to participate in screening testing program. I acknowledge that failure
to comply with the measures in any Health Protection Condition announcement could
result in temporary denial of access or revocation of my PFAC. I acknowledge that as a
civilian who is not a DoW employee, I could temporarily be denied access to the
Pentagon during a declared pandemic, national health emergency, or other emergency
contingency.
I acknowledge that if I am issued a “P” parking permit, that I will be required to
return it to the PPO upon completion of my media/press duties, or upon the expiration of
the "P"parking permit.
I have been briefed on the safety and security requirements and agree to abide by
the provisions outlined above.
Signature-- Administering Official New Badge Expiration Date_
Email address
Workphone Cell phone
Signature-- Media Member
3Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25
Page 1 of 20
EXHIBIT ECase 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25
Page 2 of20
TMENT
OF WAR
UNITED STAT
AMERICA
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ASSISTANTTO THE SECRETARY OFWAR
1400 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON , DC 20301-1400
18 SEP 2025
MEMORANDUM FOR SENIOR PENTAGON LEADERSHIP
SUBJECT: ImplementationofNew Media In-brief
Effective September 18, 2025, the attached documents implement the SecretaryofWar
memorandum,
"Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the
Pentagon,
" dated May23, 2025. All members ofthe press issued a Pentagon FacilityAlternate
Credential (PFAC ),will be required to read and sign a new in-briefform outlining information
securityrequirements, the new physical control measures, and Department ofWarexpectations
oftheircompliance with safety and security requirements.
Thepackagethat willbe provided to the memberofthe press aspart ofthe in-brief
includes the following:
Pentagon Reservation In-brieffor MediaMembers
• Appendix A,
"Denial, Revocation, or Non-Renewal of Pentagon Facility Alternative
Credentials"
• Appendix B,
"Additional Press IdentifierBadge"
° Appendix C, SW memo,
"Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/Media
Access Within the Pentagon"
Appendix D, graphic showing the areas on the first and second floor ofthe Pentagon
wherepress do not require a new escort
Appendix E, graphic showing the route that press can take to access the River
Entrance on weekends and holidays
Inadditiontothe Additional Press Identifier Badge depicted in Appendix B, the Pentagon
Force Protection Agency (PFPA), will begin issuing new PFACS to the press in coming weeks.
Priority ofissuance ofthe new PFACS will be to resident members ofthe media through
September 30, 2025. Non-resident members ofthe media and crew badgingbeginseffective
October 1 , 2025. These new PFACS will have " PRESS" clearly imprinted on them in red letters
both verticallyand horizontally to assist in identifying membersofthepress.
Request your assistance in ensuringthat all yourpersonnel are aware ofthe physical
control measures, including the requirementto provide escorts for anymedia coming intoyour
spaces for approved interviews. Additionally, personnel should be aware that ifthey see any
news media outside of the areas depicted in AppendixD that do not have an escort, they should
directthem back to the designated no-escortrequired areas and alert the Pentagon Press
Operations office at703-697-5131.Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 20
MyPOC for this action is Sue Gough, Pentagon Press Operations,
susan.l.gough.civ@mail.mil or 703-697-1254. Dee
Sean Parnell
Attachments:
As statedCase 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 20
PENTAGON RESERVATIONIN-BRIEF FOR MEDIA MEMBERS
NAME: DATE :
The purpose ofthis briefing is to inform you, as a member of the news media who has
been granted access to the Pentagon Reservation and issued a Pentagon Facilities
Alternative Credential (PFAC), also known as a Department of WarBuildingPass or a
Pentagon badge, ofthe rules regarding conduct on the Pentagon Reservation. Failureto
abide bythese rules may result in suspension or revocation ofyour building pass and loss
ofaccess.Additionally, this briefing informs you ofthe procedures associated with
denying, revoking , or not renewing the issuance of a PFAC, including contesting such a
decision (see Appendix A).
General Security
Be alert for suspicious activity and immediately report any unusual activityand/or
circumstances to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA ) at (703) 697-1001.
Ensureofficedoors are locked and property is secure when exiting your office orcubicle.
Every individual entering the building is subject to random metal detector andX -ray
inspection ofpersonal belongings. Many events, including those involvingthe Secretary
ofWar , Deputy Secretary ofWar, or visiting high-level U.S. government officialsor
foreign dignitaries, require additional security screenings to which PFACholders would
be subject.
Every individual exiting the building is subject to random checks ofpersonal belongings.
A propertypass is required to remove property from the building that is not readily
identifiable as personal. When you or other members ofyour organization (e.g.,
technicians, photographers) remove equipment owned by your organization, obtain a
property pass in advance to avoid problems when exiting the building. Property passes
may be obtained in the Pentagon Press Operations (PPO) office, room 2D961, during
normal working hours.
PFAC Security
Maintainingthe security of your PFACis an individual responsibility.
PFACSmustbe visible and always worn above the waist while in the Pentagon, except as
noted below during press or other recorded events. Remove or hide your PFACfrom
view when not in thePentagon.
Exceptions for press and otherevents: Do not have your PFACvisible in the following
circumstances: when present during an on-camera press briefing; when doinga live -shot
in the Pentagon Briefing Room or stand-ups at the Mall Entrance, River Parade Field, or
1Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 20
on the Connector Parking Lot hill; when covering honor cordon arrival ceremonies; ifon-
camera during an open press event on the Pentagon Reservation; or at any other events
that willbe recorded via photograph orvideo. Forthose with arecordingstudio inthe
Pentagon, do not have your PFAC visible when recording inyour studio.
Lost PFACS should be immediately reported to PPO at (703) 697-5131 , or, after normal
working hours, to (703) 678-6162 or to OSD.PA.DutyOfficer@mail.mil . Normal
working hours for PPO on non-holiday weekdays are 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. EasternTime .
Additional Press Identifier Badge
The Additional Press Identifier Badge (APIB) (see Appendix B) must also be visibleand
always worn above the waist while in the Pentagon. Note that APIBS serve onlyas an
additional visual identifier. APIBS are not credentials and do not confer credentialingor
attendance approval for any event .
News Media Physical Security Restrictions on the Pentagon Reservation
Effective May23, 2025, in accordance with Secretary ofWarMemorandum,
"Updated
Physical Control Measures for Press/Media Access within the Pentagon,
" May 23, 2025
(Appendix C), new physical security restrictions have been enacted for newsmedia,
including those with valid, current PFACS:
News media are not authorized to be anywhere on the 5thFloor,4thFloor, 3rd Floor,
Basement, or Mezzanine levels, including all corridors and rings, at any time without
an escort from an authorized DoWofficial.
Onthe2nd Floor, news media are authorized unescorted access in the Pentagon forthe
below areas. For all other areas ofthe 2nd Floor not included below , exceptas
otherwiseaddressed in this in-brief, news media must have an escort from authorized
DoW personnel:
Rings A through E between Corridors 1 , 10 and 9 ( from the Metro Entranceon
the E Ringthrough the Concourse to the ARing);
o E Ring from the Metro Entrance to Corridor9;
O E Ring from the River Entrance directlyto Corridor9;
o Corridor 9 fromthe E Ringto the A Ring: 951-999
o Atthe Apex ofCorridors 9/10, the exit to the Courtyard;
o A Ring from the Apex ofCorridors 9/10 to the Mall Corridor between Corridor6
and 7 andthe Mall Corridor to the Mall Entrance forthe purpose gettingto and
from the Mall Entrance forstand-ups
On the 1st Floor, news media are authorized unescorted access to the Center
Courtyard and the Food Court between Corridors 1 and 10.
See Appendix D for a graphic ofthe areas where the news media are authorized
unescorted access.
? News media are not authorized access to the Pentagon Athletic Center.
2Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 20
Ifnews media require access to other areas oroffices within the Pentagon for in-person
interviews orother engagements, they must be escorted to and from those spaces by
authorized DoW personnel.
Public Release ofDoW Information and the Protection of Classified National Security
Information and Controlled Unclassified Information
DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust.
However, DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate
authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified. The Departmentof
Warmust safeguard classified national security information (CNSI), in accordance with
Executive Order 13526 and the Atomic Energy Act, and information designated as
controlled unclassified information (CUI), in accordance with Executive Order 13556.
Onlyauthorized persons who have received favorable determinations of eligibilityfor
access, signed approved non-disclosure agreements, and have a need-to-know maybe
granted access to CNSI. DoW may only provide CUI to individuals when there is a
lawful governmental purpose for doing so.
Unauthorized disclosure of CNSI or CUI poses a securityrisk that could damage the
national security ofthe United States and place DoW personnel in jeopardy.
Escort Privileges and Procedures
A PFACauthorizes media members who are U.S. citizens to access the Pentagon 24
hours a day and affords escort privileges forup to three visiting media members from the
same media outlet who possess appropriate media credentials.
Visiting mediamembers must be entered into the PFPA Visitor Management System
(VMS) by the sponsoring U.S. public affairs office no later than one businessdayin
advance for U.S. citizens and no later than three business days in advance for non-U.S.
citizens.
A PFAC also affords escort privileges for media members who are U.S. citizens forupto
three visiting family members for special events, such as the Bring YourChild to Work
Day, subject to the approval ofthe Office of the Assistant to the Secretary ofWarfor
Public Affairs (OATSW (PA )). Family members 18 years and older must beentered into
the PFPAVisitor Management System (VMS) by the sponsoring public affairs office no
laterthan 24 hours in advance for U.S. citizens and no later than 48 hours in advancefor
non-U.S. citizens.
PFACholders escorting other media members or family members must stay withtheir
visitor(s) at all times. Failure to do so may result in loss ofthe PFAC issued to you.
PFACholders who are not U.S. citizens do not have escort privileges.
3Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 20
PFACIssuance and Renewals
PFACSmaybeissued to those media members who require regular access to the
Pentagon, who areaccessing the building at aminimum monthly visit frequency. See
PPO for the current minimum monthly visit frequency. Youmust continue tomeetthe
minimum access frequency requirement to be reissued a PFAC . There are two
probationaryperiods for an initial PFACissuance.
An initial PFACexpires in three months, on the last day ofthe third month. Youmay
submit a request for renewal atthe beginning ofthe month ofexpiration. Media
members who have met the minimum monthly visit frequency requirements duringthe
initial three-month probationary period and who have not posed a security orsafety risk
to DoW personnel or property will generally be approved fora six-monthbadge.
The second probationary period is for six months. Requests for renewals ofa six-month
PFAC may be submitted at the beginning of the month ofexpiration. Mediamembers
who have met the minimum monthly visit frequency requirements duringthesix-month
probationaryperiod and who have not posed a security or safety risk to DoW personnel
orproperty during both the initial three-month and subsequent six-month probationary
periods, will generally be approved for a one-year PFAC .
Ifthe two probationary periods have been completed successfullyand all requirements
have been met, PFACSwill be renewed annually. During annual renewalreviews , if
frequency requirements have not been met, PFAC renewals may be denied or revert to 3-
or 6-monthPFACS.
Forall renewals, PFACS expire on the last day ofthe month ofexpiration. Renewal
requests should be submitted atthe beginning ofthe month of expiration, but not before
the startofthemonth ofexpiration. Requests received prior to the start ofthe monthwill
notbeprocessed until the first business day ofthe month. Due to processing times,
renewal requests should be submitted to PPO no later than the middle of themonth of
expiration to ensure a new badge is available before the old one expires.
Frequency requirements may be waived by OATSW (PA) for a news organization's
equipment technicians and some camera crews, if specifically identified and requested by
thebureau chief . Forfirst-time applications, equipment technicians and camera crews
must stillgo through the two probationaryperiods.
PFACSmaybe denied, revoked, or not renewed if a person is reasonably determined to
pose a security or safetyrisk to DoW personnel or property, or is notmeetingthe
frequency requirements. An initial determination ofa security or safety risk mayresultin
an immediate suspension ofPentagon access during the process for making afinal
determination. A determination that an individual poses a security risk may bebasedon
the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure of
CNSI or CUI. See Appendix A for information onthe applicable standard andthe
process for denying, revoking, ornon-renewing a PFAC .Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 8 of 20
Press Parking
Parking onthe Pentagon Reservation is restricted to vehicles with permanentparking
permits, or which have been cleared for temporary parking for specific days. Vehicles
may only be parked in the areas for which they have been cleared.
There is a designated parking area for the news media at the Pentagon. The parking
spaces in two lanes of the Connector Lot, located at intersection ofConnector Road and
Boundary Channel Drive, have been reserved for the press (see Appendix E). These
parking spaces are clearly marked with "PRESS" stenciled on the ground.
Toaccess the building, for those with a PFAC, walk north towards Boundary Drive and
go up either the stairs or the ramp to the pedestrian bridge. At the security checkpoint,
swipe your badge and then show it to the PFPA officer on duty. See the route depicted at
Appendix E. The checkpoint opens at 6:00 a.m. and closes at 8:00 p.m. on weekdays.
The checkpoint is closed on weekends and federal holidays. All visiting press mustgo
through the Visitor Center at the Pentagon Metro Entrance.
There are a limited number of permanent “ P ” parking permits for news media members.
Those who have such permits may park in designated PRESS spaces with their approved
"P"parking permit at any time. News media members with "P" permit are not authorized
toparkelsewhere on the Pentagon Reservation, except when provided specific guidance
todo so for special circumstances ( e.g., when the Connector Lot is being re-surfaced,or
closed for a special event). For such instances, PPO will provide information onwhere
you maypark.
News media members desiring to be issued a "P" parking pass should contact PPO; there
is usually a waiting list for available permit.
News media without a "P" parking permit may also park in the PRESS area provided
they obtain an approved temporary parking clearance prior to their arrival at the
Pentagon. News media should contact the PPO Admin Support Team at 703-697-5131 at
least 30 minutes prior to their arrival to request temporary parking clearance, and must
provide the PPO with the following information: date requesting to park if not the day of
the call, driver's name, email, phone number, media outlet, vehicle make, vehicle model,
vehicle color, license plate number, state of registration, vehicle classification
(car/truck/motorcycle/etc.), fuel type (gas/diesel/hybrid/electric), and whether it isa
personal vehicle or a business vehicle. For repeat visits using the same vehicle, press
need only provide date, name, and vehicle license plate. For parking on weekends, call
the PPO Duty Officer at 703-678-6162.
News media may request temporary parking clearance for up to 5 days per month. Press
can request an exception from the PPO for more days only on a case- by-case basis.
5Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 9 of20
Overnight parking at the Pentagon is not permitted for members ofthe news media.
Overnight parkingis considered parking for more than 24 hours at a time.
Access on Weekends
Ifnews media need to access the Pentagon on weekends, holidays, or when thepedestrian
bridgebetween the Connector Lot and River Entrance is closed, news media may parkin
the press parking area and walk along Connector Road to River Road, go through a
pedestrian turnstile, and continue walking up the River Road to Mug Handle to gettothe
River Entrance, which is open 24/7. See Appendix E for a depiction ofthe route. Note
thatthosewithout a "P" parking permit must still provide their vehicle informationto the
PPO Duty Officer at 703-678-6162.
Mall Entrance Temporary Parking
News media crews that are doing a stand-up at the Mall Entrance location may request
Mall parking. Mall Entrance parking is by reservation only. News media should contact
the PPO Support Team at 703-697-5131 at least two hours prior to their arrivalto request
Mall Entrance parking clearance and must provide the same information as forregular
press parking (see above) with the addition oftime and arrival. Note that due to demand,
there may be times when parking in the Mall Entrance lot is restricted to four hours per
day. Visiting press who need to be at the Pentagon all day should park eitherin regular
press parkingor at the Mall Entrance. Parking at the Mall Entrance is by numbered
spaces; PPO will provide the numbered parking space for each vehiclewhen Mall
Entrance Parking is requested.
Filming/Photography
Filming, photography, and audio recording on the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited,
unless approved in advance. In accordance with 32 CFR § 234.15-Use ofvisual
recording devices:
(a) The use ofcameras or other visual recording devices on the Pentagon Reservation is
prohibited, unless the use ofsuch items are approved by the Pentagon Force Protection
Agency, the Installation Commander, or the Office of the Assistant to the Secretaryof
Warfor PublicAffairs.
(b) It shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or
graphical representation ofthe Pentagon Reservation without first obtaining permission
ofthe Pentagon Force Protection Agency orthe Office of the Assistant to the Secretaryof
WarforPublic Affairs.
Notethatthis prohibition applies to the use of apps on mobile devices that utilizethe
front-facing camera lens, such as "FaceTime" or the taking of"selfies.
"
6Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 10 of 20
News media visiting the National Pentagon 9/11 Memorial in theirpersonal capacity, not
as a member ofthe press, may take photos using their personal devices. Filming or
photography in the Memorial for a news media interview or to obtain b-roll requires an
exception, as described below under Filming/Photography Exception Requests.
Filming/Photography Pre-Approved Exceptions
News mediado not need to obtain permission in advance for filming, photography, or
audio recording in the following circumstances:
• Press events in the Pentagon Briefing Room.
° Press events announced by OATSW(PA), the public affairs office forthe Officeof
theChairman ofthe Joint Chiefs ofStaff, or the public affairs offices ofthe Military
Departments or Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, that are not located in the Pentagon
Briefing Room. Examples would include honor cordons and events at the Pentagon
River Terrace Parade Field, the Pentagon Auditorium, and the Pentagon Center
Courtyard.
• Unilateral news media stand-ups in the Pentagon Briefing Room, ifapproved, atthe
designated stand-up location outside the Mall Entrance, or live orrecorded shots
inside the network studio rooms in the Correspondent'sCorridor.
• Recording audio of off-camera interviews approved and monitored by authorized
DoW public affairs personnel.
Filming/Photography Exception Requests
The filming/photography exception requests discussed below require public affairs escort
from either OATSW(PA) or the sponsoring public affairs office, regardless ofwhether
the news media involved have a current PFAC or are visitingpress.
News media desiring to obtain b-roll or stock footage or photos ofthe Pentagon
interior or exterior must submit a request to PPO a minimum ofone week in advance
to obtain permission. If this request is in conjunction with a press event sponsored by
a public affairs office other than OATSW (PA), submit the request through the
sponsoring public affairs office. Requests should include date and times and either
the exact location or sufficient information for the public affairs office todetermine
the best available locations for the footage or photos.
News media desiring to film DoW officials standing or walking in acorridor in
conjunction with an interview must submit a request through the sponsoring public
affairs office to PPO a minimum ofone week in advance to obtain permission.
Request must include date, time, and exactlocation.
News media desiring to photograph DoW officials in theiroffices or conference
rooms in conjunction with an interview must submit their request through the
sponsoring public affairs office to the security manager for that space.
7Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 11 of 20
News media desiring to obtain b-roll or interview or film anyone inside theNational
Pentagon 9/11 Memorial must submit aDD Form 2798,
"Application/PermitforUse
ofSpace on the Pentagon Reservation,
" at least one week in advance to the Pentagon
Facility Operations Division Special Events Office at whs.pentagon.fsd.mbx.pbmo-
special-events@mail.mil. Youcan download a DD Form 2798 here:
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/forms/dd2500 2999/DD2798/
Filming/Photography from the Press ParkingArea
News media desiring to do a stand-up or film from the grassyhill nextto the press
parking area (see Appendix E) should submit a request to PPOno later than threehours
in advance. Requests should include the date, time, and the number ofpersonnel in the
crew. Once approved, filming from the grassy hill does not require public affairsescort.
Pandemics, National Health Emergencies, and Other Contingencies
Duringa declared pandemic or national health emergency, the DoW will protect the
workforce while continuing to perform its national security mission. Protecting the
workforce may entail the adoption ofpersonal protective measures, restrictions on access
to the Pentagon for essential functions only, symptom screenings, or other measures.
In the event ofa declared pandemic or national health emergency, news media entering
the Pentagon are expected to follow the same personal protective measures asDoW
personnel and as required by Health Protection Condition ( HPCON) announcements.
Failure orrefusal to complymayresult in a loss of access, ranging fromtemporary
suspension to revocationofPFACS.
Additionally , newsmedia are not considered essential personnel. During a declared
pandemic or national health emergency , news media may temporarily be denied physical
access tothe Pentagon.
During other general emergency contingencies (e.g.. fires, activeshooters, natural
disasters, utility outages), news media physical access to the Pentagon may be
temporarily curtailed or denied.
8Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 12 of 20
NAME:
DATE:
Acknowledgements
Please read and initial each ofthe below:
I understand that PFACs are extended as a courtesy to media members who work
full-time in the Pentagon or who meet the minimum monthly visit frequency. PFACS
may berevoked or not renewed for individuals who do not meet the frequency
requirement.
I understand that securing my PFAC is my responsibility. I understand that Imust
immediately reporta lostPFAC.
Iunderstand that I must wear my PFACand APIB above my waist at all times.
I understand that I and my belongings are subject to inspection when on the
Pentagon reservation.
I understand that I am responsible forthe physical security of my workarea,
including ensuring that doors are locked and properly secured, where applicable.
I understand that as a non-government employee, while a PFAC is my authorized
means ofentering the Pentagon, a PFAC does not allow me unfettered access to all ofthe
Pentagon. I have been briefed on the physical control measures for news mediaaccess
and understand which areas require escort even though I have a PFAC. I acknowledge
that I mustobtain an escort for the required escort areas and must remain with myescort
at all times inthoseareas.
I understand that a property pass is required to remove property from the building
that is not readily identifiable as personal. Property passes may be obtained from
Pentagon Press Operations, room 2D961, during normal workinghours.
I understand that any type ofvisual or audio recording on the Pentagon Reservation,
includingthe use of a cell phone camera, is prohibited, unless approved in advance, in
accordance with 32 CFR § 234.15.
Iacknowledge receipt and briefing ofthe "Pentagon Reservation In-briefforMedia
Members,
" with Appendices A-E, including Appendix A, which includes the standard
and procedures for denying, revoking, or not renewing a PFAC.
Iacknowledge that a PFAC may be denied, revoked, or not renewed if a personis
reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk to DoW personnel or property. I
understand thatsuch an initial determination may result in an immediate suspension of
my Pentagon access while the procedures preceding a final determination are pending. I
acknowledge that such a determination may be based on the unauthorized access,
attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure of CNSI or CUI.
9Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 13 of 20
I acknowledge that during a declared pandemic or national health emergency ,
I
must follow the same personal protective measures as prescribed for Pentagon personnel
when entering the building. This may include not enteringthe building ifIam not
feeling well or am experiencing symptoms. I acknowledge that I may berandomly
selected for screening for symptoms or the pandemic disease when entering the building
or maybe required to participate in screening testing program. I acknowledgethatfailure
to comply withthe measures in any Health Protection Condition announcementcould
result in temporary denial of access or revocation of my PFAC. I acknowledge thatas a
civilian who is not a DoW employee, I could temporarily be denied access tothe
Pentagonduring a declared pandemic, national health emergency, or other emergency
contingency.
I acknowledge that if I am issued a "P" parking permit, that I will be required to
return it to thePPO upon completion of mymedia/press duties, or upon the expiration of
the "P" parkingpermit.
I have been briefed on the safety and security requirements and agree to abideby
the provisions outlined above .
Signature Administering Official Signature Media Member
New Badge Expiration Date_
Email address
Workphone Cell phone
10 10Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 14 of 20
APPENDIX A
DENIAL, REVOCATION, OR NON-RENEWAL OF PENTAGONFACILITY
ALTERNATIVECREDENTIALS.
A. Reason for Denial, Revocation, or Non-Renewal. The Director, PFPA, ordesignee, shall
deny, revoke, orrefuse to renew the PFACofany person reasonablydetermined to pose a
security or safety risk to DoW personnel orproperty. Persons presumed to present such arisk
include, but are not limited to, those who have been convicted ofany offense involving:
(1) National defense ( such as treason, sabotage, terrorism, or espionage).
(2) The use, attempted use, or threatened use ofphysical force against anotherperson
(such as murder, manslaughter, assault, rape, robbery, or kidnapping) or conduct that presents a
serious potential risk ofphysical injury to another (such as arson, burglary , ortheunlawful
possession of explosives orfirearms).
(3) Unlawful manufacturing or distribution ofdrugs.
( 4 ) Threatening or harassing communications.
(5) Theft, embezzlement, trespassing, orproperty destruction.
(6) Fraud or deceit.
( 7 ) Prostitution or other prohibited sexual conduct.
(8 ) Engaging in operations and activities that are unsafe, fail to abate an identified
hazard, endanger others, or create a condition immediately dangerous to lifehealth.
(9)Unprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations.
Additionally, actions otherthan conviction may be deemed to pose a security or safetyrisk, such
asattempts to improperly obtain CNSI or CUI, or beingfound in physical possession ofCNSIor
CUI without reportingit.
B. Procedures for Denial, Revocation, or Non- Renewal. Ifthe Director, PFPA , or designee,
anticipates that a PFACmight be denied, revoked, ornot renewed, the applicant or his orher
authorizing official shall be notified in writing bythe Director, PFPA, or designee ,ofthebasis
forthe proposed denial, in as much detail as security considerations permit. When an
individual's PFAChas been denied, revoked, not renewed, or suspended, both unescortedand
escorted access to any DoW facility is terminated.
(1) The notification ofproposed denial, revocation, or non-renewal shall inform the
applicant ofthe right to respond to and rebut any factual basis supporting the proposed denial.
revocation , or non-renewal.Case 1 : 25- cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 15 of 20
(2) The applicant will be allowed 30 days from the mailing date of the proposed denial .
revocation, or non
-renewal notification to make an appeal appointment with the Director ,
Pentagon Access Control Branch (PACB).
(3) Ifthe applicant or representative is unable to schedule an appointment within 30
days,an extension for one additional 30 -day period will be granted on receipt ofa telephone
request to PACB for such an extension.
denial, revocation, or non
insufficient to substantiate the issuance of a DoW Building Pass , the applicant will be allowed 30
days from the appeal appointment to respond in writing to the Director, PFPA , or designee. The
response will consist of any explanation or rebuttal considered appropriate by the applicant and
must be signed bythe applicant or representative under oath or affirmation .
(4 ) If mitigating information is presented at the appointment to substantiate a reversal of
-renewal, the applicant may receive a DoW Building Pass at that time .
( 5 ) If no mitigating information is presented or if information is presented but is
(6 ) At the time ofthe filing of the written response to the notification ofthe proposed
denial, revocation , or non
-renewal , the applicant or representative may request, and shall
normally be granted , the opportunity to make a personal appearance before the Director,PFPA ,
or designee, to personally support his or her eligibility for a pass and to rebut or explain the
factual basis for the proposed denial. The Director , PFPA , or designee, shall exercise final
review authority in the matter.
non
(7 ) On the basis of the written or oral response to the proposed denial , revocation, or
-renewal, the Director, PFPA, or designee, shall determine whether further inquiry or
investigationon the issues raised is necessary .
(a ) Ifa decision is made that no such inquiry is necessary , a final decision shall be
issued .
(b ) Ifa decision is made that further inquiry is necessary, the Director, PFPA , or
designee , shall conduct such inquiry as deemed appropriate .
(8 ) Upon receipt of the applicant's written or oral response explaining or rebutting the
factual basis for the proposed denial, revocation, or non
-renewal , and upon completion ofany
additional inquiry, a final decision shall be expeditiously made by the Director, PFPA , or
designee. Ifa final adverse decision is reached, the applicant shall be notified ofthe final
decision in writing. The notification shall state , as precisely as security considerations permit ,
the factual basis for the denial .
( 9 ) The decision of the Director ,
PFPA, or designee, under this section shall be
conclusive. This section does not confer any rights on any individual or entity and is intended
only as internal guidance for the administration of the Department ofWar .Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25
Page 16 of 20
Appendix B
Additional Press Identifier Badge
FRONT BACK
PRESS PRESSCase 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 17 of 20
DEPARTMENT
DEFENSESECRETARY OF DEFENSE
1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000
SHED STAT
MAY 23 2025
MEMORANDUM FORRESIDENT AND VISITING PRESS ASSIGNED TO THE
PENTAGON
SUBJECT: Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/MediaAccess WithinthePentagon
References: (a) DoDM 5200.01,
"Volume3 , DoD Information Security Program:
Protection ofClassified Information,
" February 24, 2012
(b) Office ofSecretary ofDefense, Chief of Staff Memorandum: "Effortsto
Combat Unauthorized Disclosures,
" March 21, 2025
TheDepartment ofDefense's (DoD) highest priority is the defense of ourNation and our
national security. Per reference (a), the protection ofclassified national intelligence
information (CNSI) and sensitive, unclassified information, including informationdeemed
criticalto operations security (OPSEC), remains an unwavering imperative for the Department .
Per reference (b), the Chief ofStaffto the Secretary ofDefense recently directed an
investigation into unauthorized disclosures.
Whilethe Department remains committed to transparency, the Department is equally
obligated to protect CNSI and sensitive information-theunauthorized disclosure ofwhich
could put the lives of U.S. Service members in danger. Toattain professional balance between
press access and OPSEC, the following updated security measures for resident and visiting press
are needed to reduce the opportunities for in-person inadvertent and unauthorized disclosures.
Effective immediately, the Secretary of Defense directs the following control measures
for all resident and visiting press who have been issued a Pentagon Facilities Alternate
Credential (PFAC) forthe Pentagon:
1. Press/mediaare not authorized entry/access to the Secretary of Defensephysical
office spaces located on the 3rd floor, ring E, between corridors 9 and 8 without an
official approval and escort fromthe Office ofthe Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs (OATSD (PA )).
2. Press/ media are not authorized entry/access to the Joint Staffphysical office spaces
located on the 2nd floor between corridors 9 and 7, rings A through E, without
official approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense for PublicAffairs
(OSD(PA )) and escort by personnel from the Joint StaffPublic Affairs Office.
3. Press/media are only authorized unescorted access in the Pentagon on ringsA
through E on the 2nd floor of the Pentagon between the "Metro Entrance" at
corridors 1 and 10 and the "River Entrance" at corridors 8 and 9 via andto the
Pentagon Courtyard and Food Court (located between corridor 1 and 10 on the 1st
Floor) . The exception is noted in paragraph 2 (above ).
4. Ifpress require access to other areas/offices within the Pentagon for"in-person"
OSD005511-25/CMDC07129-25Case 1: 25-cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 18 of 20
Appendix D
Yellow areas indicate areas
where press are allowed without
escort.
D
5 CORRIDOR
C
B
4 CORRIDOR
3-4
3CORRIDORAPEX
APEX
A 5-6 A
Pentagon
2nd Floor
MALL ENTRANCE Second
CORRIDOR6
FloorE
4
C
B CORRIDOR 7
SOUTH TERRACE
CENTER
COURTYARD
A
A
SOUTH PARKING
SecondFloor ENTRANCE
F
SOUTHTERRACE
APEX
7-1 CORRIDOR8
PARKING ENTRANCE First
Flon
NORTH
B
Floor
C
D
CORRIDOR RIVER
ENTRANCE Second
B
DC
APEX
1-2
2CORRIDOR CORRIDOR
1 D
APEX
20141255
10
METRO- BUSCase 1 :25- cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page19 of 20
Appendix D
Yellow areas indicate areas
where press are allowed without
escort.
4
CORRIDOR
Pentagon
1st Floor
MALL
5
CORRIDOR CORRIDOR6
ENTRANCE Second
Floor
D
F
CORNID9
7
APEX
CORRIDOR
3-4
CORRIDORAPEX
APEX
7-4 CORRIDOR
PARKING
NORTH
ENTRA FirstF
3
8
TERRACE
SOUTH
PARKING
SOUTH
ENTRANCE
Floor
Second
SOUTH TERRACE
CENTER
COURTYARD
DC
2 CORRIDOR
B APEX
1-2
CORRIDOR
APEX
9-10C
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR
ENTRANCE
Floor
Second
RIVER
9
10
METRO - BUSCase 1 : 25- cv-04218 Document 1-5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 20 of 20
River Entrance
oundary
Dr
CVS Pharmacy
0
Personnel access
control point on
pedestrian bridge
ort America Pentagon
Suvenir store
Potomac
Boundary Dr
Heritage
National
Scenic
Til
Boundary Dr
Weekday route to
River Entrance
Starbucks
Hwy
Richmond
0
Personnel
turnstileat
vehicle access
control point
www
Rd
River
Grassy
Hill
ConnectorRd
Press parking
Weekend route to
River Entrance
Rd
Layers
Google Connector
AppendixECase 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-6 Filed 12/04/25
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT FDEPARTMENT
UNI
UNITED STA
OF
Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-6 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000
OF AMERICA
MAY 23 2025
MEMORANDUM FOR RESIDENT AND VISITING PRESS ASSIGNED TO THE
PENTAGON
SUBJECT: Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/ Media Access Within the Pentagon
References: (a) DoDM 5200.01,
"Volume3 , DoD Information Security Program:
Protection ofClassified Information,
" February 24, 2012
(b ) Office ofSecretary ofDefense, Chiefof StaffMemorandum: "Efforts to
Combat Unauthorized Disclosures,
" March 21,2025
The Department of Defense's (DoD) highest priority is the defense of ourNation and our
national security. Per reference (a), the protection of classified national intelligence
information (CNSI) and sensitive, unclassified information, including information deemed
critical to operations security (OPSEC), remains an unwavering imperativefor the Department.
Per reference (b), the ChiefofStaffto the Secretary of Defense recently directed an
investigation into unauthorized disclosures.
While the Department remains committed to transparency, the Department is equally
obligated to protect CNSI and sensitive information -the unauthorized disclosure ofwhich
could put the lives of U.S. Service members in danger. To attain professional balance between
press access and OPSEC, the following updated security measures for resident and visiting press
are needed to reduce the opportunities for in-person inadvertent and unauthorized disclosures.
Effective immediately, the Secretary ofDefense directs the following control measures
for all resident and visiting press who have been issued a Pentagon Facilities Alternate
Credential (PFAC) forthe Pentagon:
1. Press/media are not authorized entry/access to the Secretary ofDefense physical
office spaces located on the 3rd floor, ring E, between corridors 9 and 8 withoutan
officialapproval and escort from the Office ofthe Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs (OATSD (PA )).
2. Press /media are not authorized entry/access to the Joint Staffphysical office spaces
located on the 2nd floor between corridors 9 and 7, rings A through E, without
official approval from the Office of the Secretary ofDefense for Public Affairs
(OSD(PA)) and escort by personnel from the Joint StaffPublic Affairs Office.
3. Press/media are only authorized unescorted access in the Pentagon on rings A
through E on the 2nd floor ofthe Pentagon between the "Metro Entrance"at
corridors 1 and 10 and the "River Entrance" at corridors 8 and 9 via and to the
Pentagon Courtyard and Food Court (located between corridor 1 and 10 on the 1st
Floor). The exception is noted in paragraph 2 (above).
4. If press require access to other areas/offices within the Pentagon for "in-person "
OSD005511-25/CMDC07129-25Case 1:25 - cv-04218 Document 1-6 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3of 3
offices/Agencies/Military Departments.
from those respective offices by authorized DoD personnel from those specific
interviews (or other engagements), they are required to be formally escorted to-and-
5. Press /media are no longer authorized access to the Pentagon Athletic Center.
In coming weeks, Pentagon Press Corps members will be required to complete an
updated in -briefing form explaining their responsibilities to protect CNSI and sensitive
information and reissued a new style of PFAC with a clearer "PRESS" identifier on their badge.
We also anticipate a forthcoming announcement of additional security measures and enhanced
scrutinyon the issuance of
PFACS.
OSD(PA) will coordinate the Pentagon Force Protection Agency to ensure compliance
withthese additional security controls , including new PFACS. Failure by any member of the
resident or visiting press to comply with these control measures will result in further restrictions
and possibly revocation of press credentials.
D 5029
PBKIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY ,
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018 ;
JULIAN E. BARNES
The New York Times Company
1627 I Street NW, Suite 700
Washington , DC 20006,
Plaintiffs
Washington , DC 20301 ;
PETE HEGSETH
in his official capacity as Secretary of
,
V.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE A/K/A
DEPARTMENT OF
1600 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301 ;
SEAN PARNELL
in his official capacity as ChiefPentagon
,
WAR,
,
Defense, 1600 Defense Pentagon,
,
Spokesman, 1600 Defense Pentagon ,
Washington , DC 20301 ,
Civil Case No. 25-4218
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Defendants .Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25
Page 2 of41
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs The New York Times Company ("The New York Times” or the “The
Times") and its reporter Julian E. Barnes (“Barnes”) bring this action to enjoin provisions of a
recently implemented policy of the United States Department of Defense or Department of War
("Department” or “Pentagon”) that violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights. If allowed to
stand, that policy will upend the longstanding and “healthy adversarial tension between the
government, which may seek to keep its secrets” and “the press, which may endeavorto" report
them, Alexander Bickel, The Morality ofConsent at 79 (1977), and will deprive the public ofvital
information about the United States military and its leadership.
2. On October 6, 2025, the Department promulgated a new policy pertaining to
PFACS Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials. PFACS (also called Pentagon badges or
building passes) are credentials members ofthe press receive to access the Pentagon. The Times'
and its reporters' interests in maintaining their PFACs are exactly the type of “liberty interests"
the D.C. Circuit has held “may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth
amendment.
" Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2020). And the policy-which vests
Department officials with unbridled discretion to immediately suspend and ultimately revoke a
reporter's PFAC for engaging in lawful newsgathering, both on and off Pentagon grounds, or for
reporting any information Department officials have not approved is neither reasonable nor
viewpoint-neutral. It is exactly the type of speech- and press-restrictive scheme that the Supreme
Court and D.C. Circuit have recognized violates the First Amendment. See City ofLakewoodv.
Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757 (1988); Ateba v. Leavitt, 133 F.4th 114, 124–125
(D.C. Cir. 2025); see also Minnesota VotersAlliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. 1 , 11–12 ( 2018).
1Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 41
3. The policy, in violation of the First Amendment, seeks to restrict journalists'ability
to do what journalists have always done— ask questions of government employees and gather
information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements. If and when
they do and then publish anything that has not been approved by Pentagon officials, the policy
permits those officials to, at any time and without any standards to guide their decisions,
immediately suspend and ultimately revoke those journalists' PFACs in violation of the First
Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and binding D.C. Circuit precedent.
4. Specifically, the policy confers on Pentagon officials the unfettered discretion to
determine that ajournalist “pose[s] a security or safety risk to [Department] personnel or property,
"
see Ex. A (hereinafter the “ Policy”) at 8 , 12, based solely on a journalist's or news organization's
receipt, publication, or “solicitation” of any “unauthorized” information, regardless of secrecy
classification, id. at 12–13. It then provides that such a determination “may result in an immediate
suspension of Pentagon access "
Id. at 8, 12. The Policy also allows the Department to
suspend or revoke PFACs when Pentagon officials— again exercising standardless discretion?
determine journalists have engaged in “[u]nprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt
Pentagon operations.
" Id. at 15; see Karem, 960 F.3d at 666.
5. The Pentagon has made clear that lawful, routine newsgathering techniques—
asking questions of government employees and interviewing them for stories—whether on or off
Pentagon grounds could, in the Department's view,
“constitute a solicitation that could lead to
revocation "oftheir PFACs. Ex. A at 11. But such communications are a core journalistic practice
and a public good—the kind of basic source work that led to some of the most important news
stories in history, including the Pentagon Papers. In addition, the Department has made clear,
those journalistic practices that can be sanctioned also include, for example,
"public
2Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page4 of 41
advertisements or calls for tips,
" including via “ social media.
” Id. at 10. Providing a means for
sources to convey information is, likewise, routine. The Times, for instance, has a “tips page” on
its website that “ offer[s] several ways to get in touch with and provide materials to [Times]
journalists.
" 1
6. Through the Policy, Pentagon officials have dealt to themselves the power to
suspend and eventually revoke journalists' PFACs for publishing stories that Pentagon leadership
may perceive as unfavorable or unflattering, in direct contravention of Supreme Court precedent.
7. In issuing the Policy, the Department insisted that journalists sign an
"Acknowledgment,
” Ex. A. at 12 , acceding to their “understand[ ing]” of the Policy in order to
maintain their PFACs. Reporters from every major news organization, including The Times,
refused to comply with that demand as a condition to access the Pentagon,
² and were compelled
to turn in their PFACsas a result.³
8. While Plaintiffs and many other journalists and news organizations no longer
possess PFACs because they refused to accede to a Policy that would restrict independent
1 See https://www.nytimes.com/tips.
2 Erik Wemple, SeveralNews Outlets Reject Pentagon's Reporting Restrictions, N.Y. Times
(Oct. 13, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/13/business/pentagon-restrictions-news-
outlets.html ("Several news organizations, including The Washington Post, The New York
Times, Newsmax and NPR, have announced that their journalists will not sign a new setof
Pentagon restrictions affecting news gathering in the vast military complex. .... Other news
outlets, including The Guardian and CNN, have also said they would reject the policy. The
announcements reflect the news media's wide-ranging frustration with efforts by Pete Hegseth,
the defense secretary, to curtail the physical movement of reporters in the building and impose
fresh limits on their activities.
").
3 Erik Wemple, How the Pentagon Is Blocking Out News Organizations, N.Y. Times (Oct. 15,
2025), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/15/business/media/pentagon-press-
rules.html; David Baudner, Journalists turn in access badges, exit Pentagon rather than agree to
new reporting rules, Associated Press (Oct. 15, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-
press-access-hegseth-trump-restrictions-5d9c2a63e4e03b91fc1546bb09ffbf12.
3Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 41
reporting, the Department has welcomed what it calls the “next generation of the Pentagon press
corps” —individuals and media outlets strongly supportive of the Trump administration and
whose viewpoints the Department favors. Among that group are Mike Lindell, the chiefexecutive
ofMyPillow, who has promised to "make [the Administration] proud" with his Pentagoncoverage;
Laura Loomer, an influential pro-Trump activist; and Raheem Kassam, editor in chief of the
National Pulse, who described his publication as “basically an industry mag/site for MAGA
world.
" 6
9. These developments place the purpose and effect of the Policy in stark relief: to
fundamentally restrict coverage of the Pentagon by independent journalists and news
organizations, either by limiting what kind of information they can obtain and publish without
incurring punishment, or by driving them out of the Pentagon with an unconstitutional Policy.
While Plaintiffs' enterprising reporting on the military will continue, the Pentagon's Policy ensures
the suppression of certain newsworthy information—information, for instance, gathered by
directly questioning officials at press conferences or through routine unplanned interactions
between journalists and Pentagon personnel on Pentagon grounds.
10. The Policy abandons scrutiny by independent news organizations for the public's
benefit, and it violates the Constitution's guarantees of due process, freedom of speech, and
freedom of the press. The Policy fails to provide fair notice to Plaintiffs and other journalists and
news organizations of what, in the Department's “unbridled discretion,
" will (or will not) be
4 Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW), X (Oct. 22, 2025, at 1:21 PM),
https://x.com/SeanParnellASW/status/1981048206923329719.
5 See Ken Bensinger & Erik Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, N.Y. Times
(Nov. 4, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/business/media/new-pentagon-press-crew-
is-all-in-on-trump.html
6Id.Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 41
deemed improper newsgathering or reporting that warrants the immediate suspension and eventual
revocation of a PFAC. City ofLakewood, 486 U.S. at 757; see also Ateba, 133 F.4th at 125. And
its incurably vague language and lack of standards invite arbitrary as well as content- and
viewpoint-based determinations as to which reporters and news organizations will be granted or
denied access to the Pentagon and for what reasons. Indeed, Department officials have made clear
their viewpoint discriminatory aim in promulgating and implementing the Policy: Department
officials have publicly derided journalists who declined to sign the Acknowledgement as
"activists" and "propagandists” who spread “lies . to the American people,
" while praising
individuals approved to receive PFACsunder the Policy as free from “a biased agenda.
”7
11. The fact that the Department has conditioned journalists' access on their
willingness to attest to their understanding of an inscrutable Policy that targets their exercise of
First Amendment rights inflicts separate and additional constitutional harm on top ofthe Policy's
already irreparable chilling effect.
12. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the First Amendment guarantees “a 'rightto
gather information" " because “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the
press could be eviscerated.
” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 576 (1980)
(quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 681 (1972)). The D.C. Circuit held nearly fifty years
ago in the context of media access to the White House that “press facilities having been made
publicly available as a source of information for [journalists] , the protection afforded
newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom ofthe press . . . requires that . . .
7
Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW), X (Oct. 22, 2025, at 1:21 PM),
https://x.com/SeanParnellASW/status/1981048206923329719;
(@DOWResponse), X (Dec. 2, 2025, at 11:21 am),
https://x.com/DOWResponse/status/1995890967002452302.
5
DOW Rapid ResponseCase 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 41
access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.
” Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d
124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (citations omitted). The D.C. Circuit has since reaffirmed that “ the
interests of a bona fide Washington correspondent in obtaining [such a] pass' is not only 'protected
by the first amendment' but also ‘ undoubtedly qualifies as [a] liberty [interest] which may not be
denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.
” Karem, 960 F.3d at 660 (second
and third alternations in original) (quoting Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130–131 ) .
13. The D.C. Circuit also has made clear that “the government creates a 'nonpublic
forum' when it provides ‘ selective access for individual speakers.
" " Ateba, 133 F.4th at 122
(citations omitted). Areas of the Pentagon, including the Pentagon Briefing Room, are nonpublic
forums under the First Amendment, and therefore any regulation on speech within those forums
must be reasonable and not intended to suppress expression based on the speaker's viewpoint. See
Minnesota Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. at 11-12. The Policy fails that test and violates the First
Amendment because it is “ an effort to suppress” speech and newsgathering based on viewpoint,
and because its restrictions are not reasonable “in light ofthe purpose served by the forum.
” Id. at
12-13 .
14. This binding precedent applies with full force here. There is no legitimate, letalone
compelling, justification for the provisions of the Policy targeting lawful newsgathering and
reporting purposefully vague and overbroad provisions designed to give Department officials
free rein to grant or deny Pentagon access to journalists and media outlets on the basis of viewpoint
and that are wholly untethered to any interest in the “safe, efficient and secure operation ofthe
Pentagon Reservation.
" 10 U.S.C. § 2674(c)(1). Those provisions violate the First Amendment.
City ofLakewood, 486 U.S. at 757; see also Ateba, 133 F.4th at 125. Further, because the Policy
permits the immediate suspension of a PFAC without providing reporters procedural protections,
6Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 8 of 41
it plainly violates the Due Process Clause. See Karem, 960 F.3d at 660; Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130-
131.
15. The Policy marks a radical departure from longstanding tradition, violates the Due
Process Clause and the First Amendment, and is inflicting irreparable harm on The Times and its
reporters, including Barnes, and on the American public. By this Complaint, Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that the provisions of the Policy targeting the exercise of First Amendment rights are
unlawful and an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing those
provisions ofthe Policy.
PARTIES
16.
The New YorkTimes Company is a privately owned for-profit corporation located
in New York. The Times is headquartered at 620 8th Avenue, New York , NY 10018. The Times'
Washington Bureau is located at 1627 I Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006. Prior to
the implementation ofthe Policy, six Times journalists, including Barnes, held PFACs. The Times
and its reporters, including Julian E. Barnes , are eligible to and, if the challenged portions of the
Policy were enjoined, would reobtain their PFACs .
17. Julian E. Barnes is a national security reporter with The Times who focuses on the
Pentagon, United States intelligence agencies, and international security, among other subjects.
Barnes has been with The Times since June 2018. Prior to that, Barnes covered the Pentagon for
other news organizations including U.S. News and World Report, The Los Angeles Times, and
The Wall Street Journal. He was first issued a PFAC in 2004. With the exception of an
approximately 18-month period in 2016 and 2017, Barnes continuously held a PFAC from 2004
until the end of August 2025, when it lapsed. Though he was eligible to and invited to do so,
Barnes did not seek to renew his PFAC due to the Policy. As a result of the Policy, Barnes was
compelled to turn in his lapsed PFAC on October 15, 2025. Barnes resides in the District of
7Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 9 of 41
Columbia and is assigned to The Times' Washington Bureau.
18. Defendant United States Department of Defense, also known as the Departmentof
War, is an executive agency ofthe U.S. federal government tasked with overseeing the U.S. Armed
Forces. The Department is headquartered at the Pentagon and maintains offices and facilities in
Washington, DC, and conducts a substantial amount of official business in and relating to this
District. The Department's address is 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301.
19. Defendant Pete Hegseth is the U.S. Secretary of Defense. He is sued in his official
capacity. Secretary Hegseth is responsible for overseeing the operations and administration ofthe
Department ofDefense and the U.S. Armed Forces, which include the Army, the Navy, theMarine
Corps, the Air Force, and the National Guard, as well as developing national defense policy. He
has ultimate authority over all Department policies, including the Policy at issue here, and he
conducts a substantial amount of official business in and relating to this District. As a member of
the President's Cabinet, Secretary Hegseth regularly performs his official duties within the District
ofColumbia.
20. Defendant Sean Parnell is the Chief Spokesman for the Pentagon and Assistant to
the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and conducts a substantial amount of official business
in and relating to this District. He is sued in his official capacity. Parnell serves as the
Department's principal spokesperson responsible for providing timely and accurate information
about the Department to the media, the U.S. Congress, and the public. He also coordinates and
conducts press briefings with members of the media. He issued the “Memorandum for Senior
Pentagon Leadership” (“Memorandum”) that, together with the “Pentagon Reservation In-Brief
for Media Members” (“In-Brief ”), constitute the Policy and, on information and belief, is
responsible for implementation ofthe Policy.
8Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25
Page 10 of 41
21 . This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because this action arises under the
Constitution ofthe United States and federal statutes , 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , and because the individual
Defendants are U.S. officials sued in their official capacities , 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) .
22.
The Court is authorized to grant the requested relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2202 , 5 U.S.C. § 706, Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , and pursuant to its inherent
equitable powers.
23. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(e)(1 ) because Barnes resides in this District, because The Times and its journalists,
including Barnes, regularly engage in newsgathering and reporting in this District, including at
The Times ' Washington Bureau , and because Defendants conduct a substantial amount of official
business in this District, and a substantial part ofthe events giving rise to the claims occurred in
the District of Columbia. In particular, among other things, Secretary Hegseth, as a member of
the President's Cabinet,
“ performs a significant amount of his official duties in the District of
Columbia," Bartman v. Cheney, 827 F. Supp . 1 , 2 n.2 (D.D.C. 1993 ) ( citation omitted); see also
Chin -Young v . Esper, 2019 WL 4247260 , at * 5 (D.D.C. Sep. 6 , 2019 ), and the Department's
decision -making with respect to the development and implementation of the Policy occurred , in
substantial part, within this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Pentagon Announces a New PFAC Policy
24. There is a long tradition ofjournalists covering the military from the grounds ofthe
Pentagon . That access has enabled , among other things , real- time , eyewitness reporting on the
Department's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 , 2001 , including the attack on the
9Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 11 of 41
Pentagon itself coverage the Department has lauded. Indeed, the ability ofjournalists to cover
the military from Pentagon grounds benefits the American public, in part, because it gives
Department officials the ability to correct misinformation and get accurate information to
journalists and, in turn, to the public quickly when there is a crisis.
25. Since the Pentagon opened in 1942, Department officials have afforded qualified
members of the press, including reporters with The Times, access to the Pentagon complex to
report on the military and other defense activities.
" Hanson W. Baldwin, a Times reporter who
won a Pulitzer Prize in 1943 for his coverage of World War II, for example, routinely visited the
Pentagon to gather news and speak with Department sources.
26. Historically, the press has had unescorted access to areas including the Pentagon
Press Briefing Room. As Times opinion columnist Maureen Dowd described in an October 18,
2025 column about the Policy, journalists from The Times and other media outlets previously
"could stake out Jim Mattis, a defense secretary in President Trump's first term, when he picked
up his clothes at an in-house dry cleaners and have an off-the-record chat as he walked back to his
office, shirts slung over his shoulder” or “might bump into the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staffat a Pentagon Starbucks and have a conversation that could turn into a story.
" 10
' In addition,
since the 1970s, the Pentagon provided reporters with dedicated office space in the building,
8 See, e.g. , Jim Garamone, Senior Pentagon Correspondent Recalls 9/11, DOD News (Sept. 7,
2021), https://www.war.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/2765676/senior-cnn-pentagon-
correspondent-recalls-911/ (Department press office interview with then-ABC News producer
Barbara Starr recounting her coverage of 9/11 from the Pentagon).
9 Eleanor Watson, CBS News Ends Over 60-YearPresence at Pentagon After Declining to Sign
New Press Requirements, CBS News (Oct. 17, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-
pentagon-60-year-presence-press-requirements/.
10 Maureen Dowd, Fraidy-Cat at the Pentagon, N.Y. Times (Oct. 18, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/18/opinion/pentagon-journalists-news-hegseth.html .
10Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 12 of 41
known as the Pentagon News Room, where reporters set up desks and TV network booths.
Qualified members ofthe press, including Times journalists, have had access to such areas within
the Pentagon building for more than eight decades. That access, which was not conditioned on the
perceived viewpoint ofjournalists and their news organizations, or the content of their reporting,
served the interests of the American public and posed no security or safety risk to Pentagon
property or personnel.
27. Since Secretary Hegseth tookoffice— and, in particular, since March of2025, when
Secretary Hegseth and other top officials inadvertently disclosed details regarding imminent U.S.
airstrikes in Yemen to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic by adding him to a group chat
on the messaging platform Signal—the Department has sought to impose increasingly stringent
and unprecedented restrictions on journalists covering the Department and its leadership.¹¹
28. On May 23, 2025, Secretary Hegseth issued what he called “Updated Physical
Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the Pentagon,
" imposing restrictions on
journalists' access to specific areas of the building, including in the vicinity of his office, and
requiring journalists to be accompanied by official “escorts” when visiting certain areas . See Ex.
F at 1-2. These changes were not precipitated by any security or safety incident involving a PFAC
holder. On the contrary, according to the “Memorandum for Resident and Visiting Press Assigned
to the Pentagon,
” these “updated security measures” were purportedly “needed to reduce the
opportunities for in-person inadvertent and unauthorized disclosures.
” Id.; see also Erik Wemple,
Inside Hegseth's Effort to Limit Press Access at the Pentagon, N.Y. Times (Oct. 10, 2025)
(“Under [Secretary Hegseth's] leadership, the [D]epartment has removed national news outlets
11 See JeffreyGoldberg, The Trump Administration Accidentally TextedMe Its WarPlans, The
Atlantic (Mar. 24, 2025), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-
administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/.
11Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 13 of 41
from a shared media workspace [and] has scaled back reporters' ability to roam Pentagon
corridors.
").12 These restrictions coincide with other efforts by the Department to restrictthe flow
of newsworthy information to the public, both via the press,
13
¹³ and via Congress.¹
14
29.
On September 18, 2025, Parnell issued a “Memorandum for Senior Pentagon
Leadership" ("September 18 Memorandum”) attaching a “Pentagon Reservation In-Brief for
Media Members” (“September 18 In-Brief ” ; together, the “September 18 Policy”). In the
September 18 Memorandum, which purported to implement the Department's “Updated Physical
Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the Pentagon,
” Parnell announced new policies
governing the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of PFACs that went even further than
the newly instituted “physical control measures.
” Ex. E at 3–10.
30. The September 18 Memorandum explained that “[a]ll members ofthe press issued
a [PFAC] will be required to read and sign a new in-brief form outlining information security
requirements, the new physical control measures, and [Department] expectations of their
compliance with safety and security requirements.
” Ex. E at 1 .
31. In addition to setting out specific requirements for physical presence within the
facility, including restrictions on journalists' access to certain floors of the Pentagon, Ex. E at 4,
the September 18 In-Brief also included provisions addressed to the “unauthorized” disclosure of
12 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/business/media/hegseth-pentagon-press-access.html.
13 See, e.g., Dan Lamothe & Ellen Nakashima, Hegseth team told to stop polygraph tests after
complaint to White House, Wash. Post (July 26, 2025),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/26/pete-hegseth-leak-investigation-
trump/.
14 See , e.g., Ben Finley & Konstantin Toropin, Hegseth changes policy on how Pentagon
officials communicate with Congress, Wash. Post (Oct. 21, 2025),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/21/defense-department-pentagon-hegseth-
congress/90711972-aef4-11f0-ab72-a5fffa9bf3eb_story.html .
12Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 14 of 41
information. Specifically, it stated that “[Department] information must be approved for public
release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified" because
"[u]nauthorized disclosure of CNSI [classified national security information] or CUI [controlled
unclassified information] poses a security risk that could damage the national security of the
United States and place [Department] personnel in jeopardy.
” Id. at 5.
32. The September 18 iteration of the In-Briefwas followed by an “Acknowledgment"
that required PFAC holders to agree that they could be “determined to pose a security or safety
risk . . . based on the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized
disclosure of [classified national security information] or [controlled unclassified information],
”
and to initial next to other statements, including that “PFACs are a courtesy.
” Ex. E at 11 .
33. The September 18 In-Briefalso set forth a process for PFAC issuance, renewal, and
termination. It provided that "PFACs may be denied, revoked, or not renewed if a person is
reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk to [Department] personnel or property[.]"
Ex. E at 6, 11. It further provided that “[a]n initial determination of security or safety risk may
result in an immediate suspension of Pentagon access during the process for making a final
determination,
" which “may be based on the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access,
or unauthorized disclosure" of Department information. Id. at 6; see id. at 11 .
34. An Appendix to the September 18 Policy provided that the grounds for determining
whether a journalist poses a security or safety risk “include, but are not limited to,
” convictions for
certain offenses or “actions other than conviction . such as attempts to improperly obtain"
Department information, or “being found in physical possession of " such information “without
reporting it.
" Ex. E at 13. This Appendix also stated that a PFAC holder would be notified of a
13Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 15 of 41
decision to deny, revoke, or not renew a PFAC in writing, including the basis for the decision,
after which the journalist would have 30 days to appeal that decision. Id. at 13–14.
Members ofthe Press Object to the Policy
35. The Department's announcement of its new Policy sparked widespread confusion
and concern among news organizations and journalists who cover the Pentagon. On September
22, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (the "Reporters Committee” or “RCFP")
sent a letter to Parnell asking for clarification as to how the Policy's restriction on disclosure would
be applied and whether the Acknowledgment was intended to require journalists to agree not to
publish information without first obtaining Department approval. Ex. B.
36. In a response letter dated September 24, Parnell wrote to "clarif [y]" that the
restriction against disclosure in the Policy is one that Pentagon personnel must follow, and "does
not impose restrictions on journalistic activities, such as investigating, reporting, or publishing
stories.
” Ex. C at 1 , 3. According to Parnell,
“it informs PFAC holders of [the Department]'s
internal policies and the process for managing building access, which is a privilege extended to
facilitate responsible coverage.
" Id. The letter disclaimed any attempt to require that
“reporters . . . seek [Department] approval for their stories or endorse any viewpoint on pre-
authorization,
" and stated that “[j ]ournalists remain free to gather information through legitimate
means, such as Freedom of Information Act requests, official briefings, or unsolicited tips, and to
publish as they deem newsworthy.
” Id. at 2.
37. This letter, however, provided cold comfort. According to Parnell, the "focus "of
the Policy was “on preventing active solicitation that encourages [Department] personnel to violate
these disclosure rules, as such conduct is not always protected by the First Amendment.
" Ex. C at
2. Parnell also confirmed that the First Amendment-protected receipt and publication of
14Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 16 of 41
unsolicited, classified or protected information “could factor” into the Department's wholly
“discretion[ary]” decision to revoke a reporter's PFAC. Id.
38. On September 28, 2025, Timothy Parlatore-Secretary Hegseth's private attorney
and advisor¹5 -circulated a redlined, revised version of the Acknowledgement to members ofthe
media integrating language from the Parnell letter. Ex. D. The revisions included a number of
statements that appeared designed to characterize the Policy, including the Acknowledgment
requirement, as“not impos[ing] any obligations on [PFAC holders] to refrain from constitutionally
protected journalistic activities.
” Id. at 2. But these statements contradicted other specific
statements in the Policy that do in fact directly intrude on “ constitutionally protected journalistic
activities.
" Id. For example, the Policy as revised continued to expressly claim that Department
officials had uncabined “ discretion[]" to immediately suspend a PFAC based on a determination
that activities protected by the First Amendment, including lawful newsgathering and publication,
posed a “security or safety risk.
” Ex. A at 10. And, according to the redlined Acknowledgement,
any “direct communications with specific [Department] personnel or general appeals, such as
public advertisements or calls for tips”—typical, lawful newsgathering techniques that journalists
routinely utilize— would constitute “solicitation” in violation ofthe Policy. Ex. D at 2.
39. News organizations and PFAC-holding journalists from numerous outlets,
including The Times, informed Pentagon leadership that the September 28, 2025 revisions to the
Policy did not cure its constitutional defects and that they could not sign the Acknowledgement
consistent with their rights and responsibilities as members ofthe press.
15 See Dan Lamothe, Hegseth's legalfixer at the center ofPentagon's new media restrictions,
Wash. Post (Oct. 15, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-
security/2025/10/15/hegseth-media-restrictions-tim-parlatore/.
15Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 17 of 41
The Pentagon Announces Its Final Policy and Mandates That PFAC Holders Sign the
Acknowledgement
40. On October 6, 2025, the Department issued its final Policy, a true and correct copy
ofwhich is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
41 . The current and final version ofthe Policy includes an Acknowledgment that states:
I have received, read, and understand the “Pentagon Reservation In-brieffor Media
Members,
" with [relevant appendices] which address[] the standard and procedures
for denying, revoking, and not renewing a PFAC.
The in-brief describes
[Department] policies and procedures. My signature represents my
acknowledgement and understanding of such [Department] policies and procedures,
even if I do not necessarily agree with such policies and procedures. Signing this
acknowledgment does not waive any rights I may have under law.
Exhibit A at 14.
42. Even though the Policy invokes the Secretary's statutory authority under 10 U.S.C.
§ 2674 to safeguard the physical property of the Pentagon itself, the Policy was neither motivated
by nor narrowly tailored to any such interest. To the contrary, the Policy reaffirms the
Department's position that it possesses unbridled discretion to rescind a PFAC based on First
Amendment-protected newsgathering and reporting wherever it occurs. Specifically, the In-Brief
states that while allowing that “the receipt of unsolicited" classified or unclassified information
"and its subsequent publication is generally protected by the First Amendment and would not, on
its own, normally trigger denial, revocation, or non-renewal of a PFAC,
” if a journalist "solicit[s]
the disclosure of such information or otherwise encourages [ Department] personnel to violate laws
and policies concerning the disclosure of such information,
” the Department may deem the
journalist a "security or safety risk.
” Id. at 12.
43. Withrespect to what constitutes improper “solicitation” in the Department's view,
the In-Brief states that “solicitation” in violation of the Policy "may include direct communications
with specific [Department] personnel or general appeals, such as public advertisements or calls for
16Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 18 of 41
tips . ..
"
” and it cites “an advertisement or social media post by an individual journalist or social
media outlet that directly targets [Department] personnel to disclose non-public information
without proper authorization” as an “example” ofwhat “would constitute a solicitation that could
lead to revocation " of a PFAC. Ex. A at 12–13.
44. The Policy also takes an expansive approach to what “non-public information" the
Department may view as being off limits, and if “solicited,
” obtained or published could result in
the denial, suspension or revocation of a reporter's PFAC. According to the Policy, such
unclassified information “may include, but is not limited to, information protected by the Privacy
Act, information that is law enforcement-sensitive, and certain operational security information.
"
Id. at 6. And purportedly “ [t]o ensure the safety ofU.S. personnel,
” the Policy instructs journalists
“who find themselves in possession of information that appears to be [classified national security
information] or [controlled unclassified information]” to “discuss those materials with the
[Pentagon Press Operations] prior to publication.
” Id.
45. In addition to reiterating the Department's view that “members of the news media
do not possess a legal right to access the Pentagon" and that “such access is a privilege subject to
the discretion of government authorities,
” Ex. A, at 3 , the Policy explains that a PFAC "may be
denied, revoked, or not renewed if a person is reasonably determined to pose a security or safety
risk to [Department] personnel or property,
" and that “[s]uch determination may be based on
factors including, but not limited to, the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or
unauthorized disclosure of " classified or unclassified information “based on a reasonable
assessment informed by the unique facts and circumstances of each case.
" Id. at 12.
46. The Policy further states that Pentagon officials have the discretion to “deny,
revoke, or refuse to renew the PFAC of any person reasonably determined to pose a security or
17Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 19 of 41
safety risk to [Department] personnel or property.
” Ex. A at 15. It explains that " [p]ersons
presumed to present such a risk include, but are not limited to, those who have been convicted of
any offense involving ,
” among other things “[u]nprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt
Pentagon operations.
” Id. (emphasis added). The Policy does not explain what type of
“conviction” it refers to with respect to “[u]nprofessional conduct,
” and expressly notes that
“actions other than conviction may be deemed to pose a security or safety risk.
” Id.
47. The Policy expressly states that an “initial determination” that ajournalist “pose[s]
a security or safety risk. . . may result in an immediate suspension” of a PFAC “while the
procedures preceding a final determination are pending.
” Ex. A at 12.
48. Following its issuance of the Policy on October 6, the Department gave PFAC
holders until October 14 to review and sign the Acknowledgment.
49. The decision to issue the Policy, as well as related decisions regarding the content
of the Policy, were made either in full or in substantial part by Secretary Hegseth and other
Department officials and advisors located in the District of Columbia.
The Department Revokes Reporters' Access
50.
Prior to the Department's deadline, journalists with PFACs at The Times and
virtually every other major news organization covering the Pentagon uniformly declined to sign
the Acknowledgment. Instead, they informed Pentagon officials that they believed the Policy, and
the Department's insistence that they sign the Acknowledgment, violated their First Amendment
rights. As a result, on October 15, 2025, they were compelled to turn in their PFACs. On
information and belief, of the 56 news outlets represented in the Pentagon Press Association
(PPA), only one agreed to sign the Acknowledgement.
18Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 20 of 41
The Department Selects a New “Pentagon Press Corps” Based on Viewpoint
51. Within days, Parnell took to his officialX account to “ announce the next generation
of the Pentagon press corps .
" In describing the “[n]ew media outlets” willing to accede to the
Department's “media access policy,
" Parnell wrote that they “circumvent the lies of the
mainstream media and get real news to the American people,
” and “[t]heir reach and impact
collectively are far more effective and balanced than the self-righteous media who chose to self-
deport from the Pentagon"-journalists “in the mainstream media” whom Parnell described as
"activists who masquerade as journalists.
"16
52. New PFACrecipients include the National Pulse, which was described by its editor-
in-chief as “an industry mag/site for MAGA world" ; Laura Loomer, an “influential pro-Trump
activist"; and former congressman Matt Gaetz, President Trump's one-time choice for Attorney
General of the United States, who is now affiliated with One America News .17 Many have
expressed ideological support for the Trump administration or indicated that they do not intend to
report critically on the Pentagon. 18 For example, Libby Emmons, the editor-in-chief of Human
Events and the Post Millennial who requested four passes for her staff after “receiv[ing] an
unsolicited invitation to apply for credentials,
" stated that “[t]here should be a place for reporting
on what they are doing without always trying to expose the dark underbelly,
” and Tim Pool, who
16 Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW), X (Oct. 22, 2025, at 1:21 PM),
https://x.com/SeanParnellASW/status/1981048206923329719.
17 Besinger & Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, supra n.5; David Bauder,
Somefriendly, some on-the-news questions atfirstbriefingfor new Pentagon press corps, AP
News (Dec. 2, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-corps-access-journalists-
96163e7ac0c8a73a44178fb5bb852863.
18 Besinger & Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, supra n. 5 .
19Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 21 of41
event with Secretary Hegseth.20 In welcoming what she called the “ official new members of the
disclosed that his outlet would be getting a credential , explained that his is “not an investigative
19
news organization” and he did “not intend to maintain a significant presence in the Pentagon .
”"
53. Earlier this week, the Department held its first in-person press events on Pentagon
grounds since the Policy went into effect, which included a press briefing and a “meet- and - greet ”
Pentagon Press Corps ," Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson ( "Wilson") specifically
focused on the Department's preference for their First Amendment activities. She criticized
journalists and news organizations, like Plaintiffs, who had previously held PFACs, calling them
"propagandists " who "stopped telling the truth,
” and she praised those the Department had selected
to cover the Pentagon , asserting that they “actually reach Americans, ask real questions , and don't
pursue a biased agenda.
54. ”21
Similarly, in determining when solicitation of unapproved information is
permissible, the Department has already drawn distinctions based on favored and disfavored
content and speakers . In her X post announcing that LOOMERED “is now a credentialed outlet
at the Pentagon,
” Loomer stated : “ I have developed a Rolodex of sources and if you have any tips ,
feel free to contact the Loomered Tip Line: the most influential Tip Line in all of DC.
”22 When
19 Id.
20
Scott Nover, Pentagon's right-wing, pared press corps gets a meet -and-greet, Wash . Post
(Nov. 29, 2025 ), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/11/29/pentagon-press-policy-
hegseth/.
21 DOW Rapid Response (@DOWResponse) , X (Dec. 2 , 2025 , at 11:21 am ) ,
https://x.com/DOWResponse/status/1995890967002452302.
22
Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer), X (Nov. 3 , 2025 , at 11:13 PM),
https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1985560924720124414 .
20Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 22 of 41
asked whether Loomer's “request for tips violates its new press policy,
"23 the Department
responded that it did not. Through a statement attributable to Wilson, the Department stated:
Unlike [the Washington Post's] solicitation, which explicitly and exclusively targets
military personnel and DoW employees, Laura Loomer's X post regarding tips to her news
outlet is a general tip line, which is constitutionally permissible. Therefore it does not
violate the Pentagon's media access policy. This distinction was explained in detail to the
Pentagon Press Association before they chose to engage in a dishonest and performative
walk out. IfFake News reporters actually had a brain and could read our policy correctly,
then maybe one day they will be as effective of a journalist as Ms. Loomer is.
24
This explanation came on the heels of another statement from Wilson in which she asserted that
"we have seen a lot of the mainstream media continue to lie.
"25
55.
In another instance, at the first official press conference held by Wilson on
December 2, 2025, James O'Keefe, founder of the conservative group Project Veritas, noted that
he had surreptitiously recorded a high-level Pentagon official making unguarded statements that
were plainly unapproved by Department leadership-newsgathering now ostensibly prohibited by
the Policy. Wilson, however, praised O'Keefe's work, which appeared to expose a critic of
President Trump, noting: “That's why the work you all do is so important.
"26
56. While the Pentagon has opened its press room to those who are willing to report
only the official line, the need for independent reporting has been underscored by the ongoing
public controversies involving the Pentagon. For example, on December 1 , 2025, The Times
23 Scott Nover (@ScottNover), X (Nov. 4, 2025, at 1:53 PM),
https://x.com/ScottNover/status/1985782401755128207.
24 Scott Nover (@ScottNover), X (Nov. 4, 2025, at 2:02 PM),
https://x.com/ScottNover/status/1985784630100804036.
25 Besinger & Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, supra n. 5.
26 James O'Keefe Asks Pentagon Press Secretary Question About Identifying Anti-Trump
Members ofDOD, Forbes Breaking News, YouTube (Dec. 2, 2025),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQfpJfAgIdU; see also James O'Keefe
(@JamesOkeefeIII) , X (Apr. 23 , 2025 at 3:46 PM),
https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1915175452404035624.
21Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 23 of 41
of drugs.27 The Times' reporting was based on information gathered from “five U.S. officials,
reported that the U.S. military's strikes on a boat in the Caribbean Sea, which occurred on
September 2 , 2025 , were made in response to a directive by Secretary Hegseth that the strike
should kill the peopleon board and destroy the vessel and its contents , including a purported cargo
who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity.”28
57.
In recent weeks , The Times also has reported , inter alia, on efforts by Secretary
Hegseth to fire or sideline generals and admirals,29 the Pentagon's inquiry into Senator Mark
Kelly's remarks urging members of the military not to follow illegal orders, 30 and significant
changes to United States military personnel policies and training requirements.³¹
58 . Attack butNotthe Killing ofSurvivors, Officials Say, N.Y. Times (Dec. 1 , 2025),
While reporters from The Times and other news organizations without PFACs have
continued and will continue to gather news and publish important stories about the Department
and the United States military, the Policy ensures that certain stories will no longer be available to
those journalists and news organizations and to the public that relies on their reporting. As one
new PFAC recipient put it earlier this week when asked why he was reporting from the Pentagon:
27 Charlie Savage , Julian E. Barnes , Eric Schmitt & John Ismay, Hegseth Ordered a Lethal
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/hegseth-drug-boat-strike-order-venezuela.html .
28 Id
.
29 Greg Jaffe, Eric Schmitt & Helene Cooper, Hegseth Is Purging Military Leaders WithLittle
Explanation, N.Y. Times (Nov. 7, 2025) ,
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/us/politics/hegseth-firing-military-leaders.html .
30
Greg Jaffee, Pentagon Opens Inquiry Into Senator MarkKelly Over WhatHegseth Calls
' Seditious ' Video, N.Y. Times (Nov. 24, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/us/politics/mark-kelly-pentagon-investigation.html .
31
, e.g. , Dave Phillipps, Veterans See Costs and Risks in Hegseth's Military Rewind to 1990,
N.Y. Times (Oct. 2 , 2025 ), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/hegseth-military-veterans-
standards.html ; John Ismay, What Women Heard in Hegseth's Remarks About Physical
Standards, N.Y. Times (Oct. 2 , 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/politics/women-
military-hegseth-physical-standards.html.
See
22Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 24 of41
"
Press have always worked at the Pentagon . ... Correspondents place themselves at the buildings
so when a major story breaks they're there to cover it.”³2
59 . Stories based on routine unplanned interactions between journalists and Pentagon
personnel on Pentagon grounds , stories based on probing questions asked at press briefings and
up questions posed to officials by reporters from other
person , and often spontaneous exchanges, in which reporters can judge the demeanor of
government officials as they respond to questions in real time and press for more information on
news conferences , stories built from follow-
outlets, and stories that capture the mood and atmosphere within the Pentagon during times of
consequential military operations are all examples of what Plaintiffs can no longer report. In-
the spot, are different in kind and can elicit different information than inquiries by phone or by
email . Without their PFACs, Plaintiffs and other journalists and news organizations are deprived
of unique , newsworthy information that can only be obtained in person and through such
exchanges . Cf. ABC , Inc. v Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 99 (2d Cir. 2004) (
“
[O] ne cannot transcribe an
anguished look or a nervous tic.
"
).
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Violation ofthe Due Process Clause (Void for Vagueness)
( APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
60. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of
the Complaint.
61 . The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “
No person shall
be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend . V.
32 Cam Higby (@camhigby ) , X (Dec. 1 , 2025 , at 4:45 PM),
https://x.com/camhigby/status/1995655541474165162.
23Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 25 of 41
The Times and its reporters, including Barnes, have both a liberty and a property interest in their
PFACS.
62. The Policy violates the Due Process Clause because it "fail[s] to provide the kind
of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits” and
"authorize[s] and even encourage[s] arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
" City ofChicago
v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 , 56 (1999). In both respects the Policy is unconstitutionally vague.
63. "A law is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide a person of ordinary
intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages
seriously discriminatory enforcement.
" Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, 72 F.4th
1286, 1303 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted). The vagueness doctrine serves to ensure that
“regulated parties [ ] know what is required of them so they may act accordingly” and “that those
enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way.
" FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012).
"When speech is involved, rigorous adherence to those
requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech.
" Id. at 253-
54; see also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 109 (1972) (“[W]here a vague statute
'abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,
' it ‘ operates to inhibit the
exercise of [those] freedoms.
' Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to ‘ steer far wider of
the unlawful zone'
... than if the boundaries ofthe forbidden areas were clearly marked.
” ” ).
64. It is “[a] fundamental principle in our legal system” that “laws which regulate
persons or entities must givefair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.
” Karem, 960 F.3d
at 664 (quoting Fox Television, 567 U.S. at 253). As the D.C. Circuit has recognized,
“[s]uch
'[e]lementary notions of fairness'
...
'dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the
conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that [the
24Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 26 of 41
government] may impose. 222
Id . (quoting BMW ofN. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574 (1996)
(alternations in original)). Simply put, as the Supreme Court has made clear,
“the Due Process
Clause does not permit” the Department “to classify arbitrariness as a virtue.
" State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 418 (2003) (quoting Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,
499 U.S. 1 , 59 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (explaining that the government “can have no legitimate
interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoidpunishment
based solely upon bias or whim")). These principles carry special force in the First Amendment
context, Karem, 960 F.3d at 660, and alone warrant injunctive relief, id. at 668.
65.
"[T]he suspension of a hard pass, like the denial of a hard pass ,
'implicate[s]'
'important first amendment rights,
" " and therefore must be “evaluate[ d] . . . under a particularly
'stringent vagueness [and fair-notice] test.
” Karem, 960 F.3d at 665 (quoting Sherrill, 569 F.2d
at 130). To afford adequate process, the government must provide sufficient advance notice
through “explicit and meaningful standard[s]" that are “formally articulated or published,
” and
specifically describe both the conduct that would warrant sanctions and the severity of the
sanctions that may be imposed . Id. at 660 (quoting Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130–31).
66. The Policy fails to provide fair notice. Instead, it makes immediate suspension and
eventual revocation of a PFAC a wholly discretionary determination such that Department officials
"may " (or may not) determine that a PFAC holder is a “safety or security" risk based on a number
of factors, including the lawful newsgathering and reporting that Plaintiffs engage in every day
and intend to continue to engage in. See Ex. A at 12-13 . The Policy also threatens to revoke
PFACS when Pentagon officials in their sole discretion conclude journalists have engaged in
“[u]nprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations.
” Id. at 15. The Policy
is also internally contradictory; it claims not to target constitutionally protected activities but
25Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 27 of 41
creates a system that , on its face, does just that . The Policy's lack of objective, discernible
enforcement standards, coupled with its inherently contradictory provisions , deprive PFAC
holders ofthe requisite “fair notice" to satisfy the demands of Due Process.
67. The Act is independently void for vagueness because the law “is so standardless
that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.
” United States v. Williams,
553 U.S. 285 , 304
(2008)
.
Plaintiffs
68.
69.
In each respect, the Policy violates the Fifth Amendment facially and as applied to
.
Defendants ' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewable under
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 .
70. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
71 . The Court should declare specified provisions ofthe Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy.
COUNT II
Violation ofthe First Amendment
(
Unbridled Discretion)
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe preceding paragraphs.
73 . The Supreme Court has long recognized “the time-tested knowledge that in the area
of free expression a licensing statute placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government
official or agency constitutes a prior restraint and may result in censorship.
” City of Lakewood ,
486 U.S. at 757. “[E]ven if the government may constitutionally impose content -neutral
prohibitions on a particular manner of speech, it may not condition that speech on obtaining a
26Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 28 of 41
license or permit from a government official in that official's boundless discretion.
" Id. at 764.
That is because “a law or policy permitting communication in a certain manner for some but not
for others raises the specter of content and viewpoint censorship" and that "danger is at its zenith
when the determination of who may speak and who may not is left to the unbridled discretion ofa
government official.
” Id. at 763.
74. The Policy has established a licensing regime that conditions Plaintiffs' ability to
gather news on Pentagon grounds on obtaining a PFAC that can be suspended, denied, or revoked
in the Department's “boundless discretion,
" including for speech and newsgathering that takes
place off Pentagon grounds. Id. at 764.
75. The Policy expressly permits Pentagon officials to determine that a journalist
"pose[s] a security or safety risk to [Department] personnel or property,
” based on that journalist's
receipt, publication, or “solicitation” of any “unauthorized” information, Ex . A at 12-13, without
limitation, and expressly provides that such a determination “may result in an immediate
suspension of Pentagon access.
" Id. at 8, 12. This determination is made by Department
officials based on “the unique facts and circumstances of each case,
' "on a case-by-case basis,
"
and considering “the totality of the circumstances.
" Id. at 12-13. The Policy thereby vests
Department officials with unbridled discretion to suspend and/or revoke reporters' access to the
Pentagon for engaging in lawful newsgathering or for reporting any information not approved by
Department officials-regardless of whether such newsgathering occurs on or off Pentagon
grounds, and regardless of whether the information at issue is classified or unclassified. Id.; see
also Ex. C. at 2.
76. By vesting Department officials with unbridled discretion to cause the “immediate
suspension of [reporters'] Pentagon access” and to “ den[y], revoke[], not renew[], or suspend[]" a
27Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 29 of 41
reporter's PFAC based on the information that reporter has “solicited,
" received, written, or
published, Ex . A at 8, 12–13, 15, the Policy constitutes precisely the kind of “prior restraint”
described in City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 757. “[T]he mere existence of the [Department's]
unfettered discretion, coupled with the power ofprior restraint,
" is designed to “intimidate[] parties
into censoring their own speech, even if the discretion and power are never actually abused.
” Id.
The Policy is "unconstitutional, because without standards governing the exercise ofdiscretion,
"
the Department “may decide who may” access the Pentagon and "who may not based upon the
content ofthe speech or the viewpoint of the speaker.
” Id. at 763–64.
77. The risk of discretionary punishment based on protected newsgathering and
publication chills the exercise of First Amendment rights. The Policy as written necessarily forces
news organizations and journalists, including Plaintiffs, to weigh the risk of suspension or
revocation oftheir Pentagon access against the public interest in engaging in lawful newsgathering
and reporting. Id. at 757-58. In this way, the Policy impermissibly chills speech and
"discourage[s] the ‘ uninhibited , robust, and wide-open debate that the First Amendment is
intended to protect.
" See Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 68 (2023) (quoting Rogers v.
United States, 422 U.S. 35, 48 (1975) (quoting Sullivan, 276 U.S. at 270)).
78. In this respect, the Policy violates the First Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
79. Defendants'adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
80. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
28Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 30of41
81 . The Court should declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy
.
COUNT III
Violation of the First Amendment (Unconstitutional Denial of Access to Nonpublic Forum)
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
82 . Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe preceding paragraphs.
83 . News organizations and journalists , including Plaintiffs, have historically had
access to the Pentagon , including to the Pentagon Press Briefing Room , and such access has not
posed any risk to the safety or security ofPentagon property or personnel .
84. " Although the government is not required to open such spaces for any speech at all,
the government creates a ' nonpublic forum '
when it provides ' selective access for individual
speakers.
Pentagon Briefing Room , are nonpublic forums for First Amendment purposes . See Ateba, 133
F.4th at 121-22 (holding that White House press area was a nonpublic forum for First Amendment
purposes); see also United States v. Nassif , 97 F.4th 968 , 976–77 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (United States
Capitol buildings are nonpublic forums for First Amendment purposes).
forum "for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise , as long as the regulation on speech
is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials
" Ateba , 133 F.4th at 122 (citations omitted). Areas of the Pentagon , including the
85. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the government may reserve a nonpublic
the
oppose
speaker's view .
" Minnesota Voters Alliance, 585 U.S. at 11–12 .
86. Because the Policy is "an effort to suppress"
speech and newsgatheringon
Pentagon grounds by members of the press , including Plaintiffs, whose reporting and perceived
viewpoints the Department disfavors , the Policy violates the First Amendment. Id.
29 29Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 31 of 41
87. The Policy also violates the First Amendment because its provisions targeting
Plaintiffs' newsgathering and reporting are not reasonable “in light of the purpose served by the
forum.
” Minnesota VotersAlliance, 585 U.S. at 12–13 (citation omitted). Those provisions ofthe
Policy were not prompted by any specific security or safety concern or security incident involving
a PFAC holder and are unrelated to the “security or safety" of "[Department] personnel or
property,
" objectives they purport to further. Ex. A at 12.
88.
That the Policy provides that a PFAC can be suspended, denied, or revoked in the
Department's standardless and “boundless discretion,
" City ofLakewood, 486 U.S. at 764, alone
makes the provisions targeting Plaintiffs' newsgathering and reporting unreasonable.
See
Minnesota VotersAlliance, 585 U.S. at 21–22 (holding that a state's “indeterminate prohibition”
on certain apparel in polling places—nonpublic forums— was unreasonable and therefore violated
the First Amendment including because it failed to include “objective, workable standards” for
enforcement); see also Ateba, 133 F.4th at 125 (explaining that “the exercise of unbridled
discretion to deny access to a nonpublic forum is unreasonable” (citing Am. Freedom Def .
Initiative v.Wash. Metro. Area TransitAuth. 901 F.3d 356, 364 372 (D.C. Cir. 2018))).
89
.
In this respect, the Policy violates the First Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
90. Defendants' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
91. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
3030Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 32of41
92 . The Court should declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy.
Count IV
Violation of the First Amendment (Content- Based and Viewpoint- Based Restraint on
Newsgathering and Publication)
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
93 . Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe preceding paragraphs .
94 .
“The First Amendment guarantees a free press primarily because of the important
role it can play ‘as a vital source of public information . ”” Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705 , 710 (D.C.
Cir. 1981 ) (quoting Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 , 250 ( 1936)).
“Without an
unfettered press, citizens would be far less able to make informed political, social, and economic
choices,
" and "journalists frequently depend on informants to gather news .” Id. at 711. The First
Amendment protects not only the right to publish but also journalists ”
“right to gather information ”
because "without some protection for seeking out the news , freedom of the press could be
eviscerated .
" Richmond Newspapers, Inc. , 448 U.S. at 576 (quoting Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 681 ).
95. The First Amendment right to gather information protects reporters' ability to
that the “public harm that would flow from undermining all source relationships would be
receive information, including by developing and speaking to sources. In re Grand Jury Subpoena ,
immense"
).
JudithMiller, 438 F.3d 1141 , 1168 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Tatel , J., concurring in judgment) ( explaining
96. The newsgathering and publication of information about the Department and its
leadership that Plaintiffs engage in routinely, including the publication of stories based on
information PFAC holders learn from
sources and newsgathering efforts off Pentagon property,
31Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 33 of 41
are protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiffs have continued and intend to continue to engage
in such First Amendment-protected activity, including lawful speech and newsgathering that the
Department deems in violation of its Policy.
97. In its “inevitable effect ” and “stated purposes,
" the Policy is a content-based and
viewpoint-based restriction on such newsgathering and publication; it is therefore subject to strict
scrutiny. Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 565 (2011) (citation omitted); Reed v. Town
of Gilbert, Ariz. , 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015) (explaining that content-based restrictions "are
presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are
narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests"); see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors
of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 , 829 (1995) (explaining that viewpoint discrimination is an
"egregious form of content discrimination").
98. The In-Brief explains that Plaintiffs' “PFACs may be denied, revoked, or not
renewed if a person is reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk to [Department]
personnel or property.
” Ex. A at 8, 12. In describing what might make an individual “a security
or safety risk,
" the Policy adopts a content-based standard: such a “determination may be based on
factors including, but not limited to[, ]" the “solicitation” or “unauthorized disclosure" ofclassified
or unclassified information. Id. at 12. The Policy thus permits Department officials, in their
discretion, to cause the “immediate suspension of [Plaintiffs'] Pentagon access” and to "den[y],
revoke[], not renew[], or suspend[]" Plaintiffs' PFACs based on that First Amendment-protected
activity. Id. at 8, 12–13, 15.
99. The Policy is intended to and is being implemented to restrain and chill the speech
and newsgathering activity ofjournalists and news organizations, including Plaintiffs, on the basis
of content and perceived viewpoint. In a recent X post, Parnell explained that the Policy forced
32Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 34 of 41
journalists and news organizations, including Plaintiffs, to “self-deport[]" from the Pentagon,
asserted that those journalists and news organizations “lie[],
” do not report “real news” and are
"activists who masquerade as journalists,
" and called them less “effective and balanced" than their
"new media" replacements,33 who have evinced support for the Trump administration.³4 Such
"viewpoint discrimination is poison.
” Frederick Douglass Found. , Inc. v. District ofColumbia,
82 F.4th 1122, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted).
100. The Department has made clear that for certain disfavored journalists and news
organizations, providing a means for potential sources to give their journalists tips violates the
Policy. Ex. D at 2. At the same time, the Department has made clear that this same activity, when
engaged in by a favoredjournalist or media outlet, will not be considered by the Department to be
a violation. 35
101. The provisions of the Policy that target speech and newsgathering by members of
the press, including Plaintiffs, are not narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest.
102.
There is an unbroken history of journalists, including journalists with The Times,
reporting from Pentagon grounds without posing any risk to the safety or security of Pentagon
personnel or property and the Policy was not motivated by or implemented to address any
legitimate, specific safety or security concern. The Policy is wholly untethered to any legitimate
interest in preventing “security or safety risk[s ] to [Department] personnel or property,
” Ex. A at
33 Parnell (@SeanParnellASW), X (Oct. 22, 2025, at 1:21 PM).
34 See Besinger & Wemple, New Pentagon Press Crew Is All In on Trump, supra n . 5.
35 Scott Nover (@ScottNover), X (Nov. 4, 2025, at 2:02 PM),
https://x.com/ScottNover/status/1985784630100804036; James O'Keefe Asks Pentagon Press
Secretary Question About Identifying Anti-Trump Members ofDOD, Forbes Breaking News,
YouTube(Dec. 2, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQfpJfAgIdU.
33Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 35 of 41
15, and it fails to leave open adequate "alternative observation opportunities,
” Reed v. Lieurance,
863 F.3d 1196, 1212 (9th Cir. 2017) .
103. Even ifthe Policy did address a legitimate concern about safety or security at the
Pentagon, it is hopelessly overbroad. It seeks to restrain and chill constitutionally protected
newsgathering and reporting that occurs both on and off Pentagon grounds, including "direct
communications with specific [Department] personnel or general appeals, such as public
advertisements or calls for tips ....
" Ex. A at 12-13; see also, e.g. , Grayned, 408 U.S. at 114 (“A
clear and precise enactment may nevertheless be ‘ overbroad' if, in its reach it prohibits
constitutionally protected conduct.
”) .
104. The Policy's ever-present threat ofPFAC suspension or revocation for “ soliciting,
”
receiving, or publishing information about the Department that has not been officially approved
chills the exercise of First Amendment rights in multiple ways. It imposes a gag on allDepartment
employees' communications with the press outside of pre-approved situations. It also states that
a “security or safety risk” determination—warranting potential suspension or revocation of a
PFAC?can be based on “unauthorized access [or] attempted unauthorized access” of classified
or unclassified information. Ex. A at 12. And it provides for potential suspension or revocation
of a PFAC if a reporter “solicit[s] the disclosure of such information or otherwise encourage[s]
[Department] personnel to violate laws and policies concerning the disclosure of such
information.
" Id.
105. As the Supreme Court has recognized,
“self-censorship w[ill] result,
” if
government is permitted to sanction the use of “routine newspaper reporting techniqu[es].
” The
Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 538 (1989). And“state action to punish the publication of truthful
information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards.
” Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443
34 34Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 36of41
U.S. 97 , 102 ( 1979). The Department has no legitimate justification, let alone a compelling one ,
for the Policy's restrictions on Plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment rights .
106.
In this respect, the Policy violates the First Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
107. Defendants ' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewable under
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
108. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public .
109. The Court should declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy .
COUNT V
adequate pre -deprivation process by allowing Department officials to immediately suspend a
Violation of the Due Process Clause (Lack ofAdequate Pre-Deprivation Process)
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
110. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations ofthe preceding paragraphs.
111 . The Policy violates the Due Process Clause because it deprives reporters of
PFAC before providing the PFAC holder any opportunity to be heard .
112.
A PFAC "undoubtedly qualifies as [ a ] liberty [interest] which may not be denied
without due process of law under the [Fifth Amendment ] .” Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130–31 . The
degree of pre-deprivation process to which someone is entitled under the Due Process Clause
"depends upon whether the recipient's interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental
interest in summary adjudication.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 263 (1970 ) ; see Nat'l Council
35Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 37 of 41
of Resistance of Iran v. Dep't of State, 251 F.3d 192, 205-08 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (affording due
process prior to government action depriving organization of"protected property right ").
113. Given PFAC holders' weighty interest in avoiding a loss of access relative to the
government's non-existent interest in abrogating such access, PFAC holders are entitled to
meaningful pre-deprivation process, including notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard
prior to any suspension, at least outside of situations in which the government can credibly
demonstrate a threat ofphysical harm. See Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 267–68. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit
has expressly applied this requirement to the press pass context, holding that prior to a suspension
or revocation, the government must provide “notice ofthe factual bases for denial [of access], an
opportunity for the applicant to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for
denial.
" Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130.
114. In contravention of this requirement, the Policy provides for the immediate
suspension ofaccess prior to any opportunity for a PFAC holder to be heard.
115. In this respect, the Policy violates the Fifth Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
116. Defendants' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
117. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
118. The Court should declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to law, enjoin
Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing those provisions
ofthe Policy.
3636Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 38 of 41
COUNT VI
Violation of the First and Fifth Amendments – Unconstitutional
Condition (APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
119 .
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
120.
The Department's requirement that PFAC holders sign an “Acknowledgement "
attesting to their “understanding” ofthe Policy imposes an unconstitutional condition on reporters'
Pentagon access. Ex. A at 14. The Policy requires reporters to confirm they “understand[]" its
vague and standardless provisions and misstatements ofgoverning First Amendment standards.
121 .
The government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his
constitutionally protected ... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.
"
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214 (2013) (omission in
original); see also City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 764 (“[E]ven 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.
").
122. In this respect, the Policy violates the First Amendment facially and as applied to
Plaintiffs.
123. Defendants' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
124. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
125. The Court should therefore declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to
law, enjoin Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing
those provisions ofthe Policy.
37Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 39 of 41
COUNT VII
Violation ofthe Administrative Procedure Act—Arbitrary & Capricious Action
(APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 )
126. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs .
127. The Department's adoption of the Policy is arbitrary and capricious in violation of
the Administrative Procedure Act.
128. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has failed to “examine the
relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made.
” Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S. , Inc. v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29 , 43 (1983) (quotation marks omitted). The
Department has not offered , and cannot offer , any “rational connection" between the “safety ”and
"security " of Department personnel and property and the provisions of the Policy targeting First
Amendment-protected speech and newsgathering. Id.; FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556
U.S. 502 , 515 (2009 ) (If an agency “depart [s ] from a prior policy," it “must show that there are
good reasons for the new policy.").
129. Further, in adopting the Policy, the Department failed to consider less burdensome
"alternative way[s ] of achieving [ its ] objectives ." State Farm, 463 U.S. at 48 ; see also, e.g. ,
Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v . FCC, 794 F.2d 737, 746 n.36 (D.C. Cir. 1986 ) ("The failure of
an agency to consider obvious alternatives has led uniformly to reversal .
”
).
130. The Department also took into account impermissible factors in crafting the Policy,
which in purpose and effect discriminates against journalists and news organizations , including
Plaintiffs, on the basis of content and perceived viewpoint . See Dep't of Com . v. New York, 588
U.S. 752 , 785 (2019) (Courts " cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the
explanation given" as they are “not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are
38Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 40 of 41
free.
" (quoting United States v. Stanchich, 550 F.2d 1294, 1300 (2d Cir. 1977) (Friendly, J.))).
Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency, as here,
“relied on factors” it is not
empowered"to consider.
" State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43.
131 .
In this respect, the Policy violates the Administrative Procedures Act.
132.
Defendants' adoption ofthe Policy constitutes final agency action reviewableunder
the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
133. The Policy has caused Plaintiffs irreparable harm and is causing ongoing
irreparable harm to Plaintiffs as well as the public.
134. The Court should therefore declare specified provisions of the Policy contrary to
law, enjoin Defendants from implementing them, and vacate any agency action implementing
those provisions ofthe Policy.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request an order:
a. Declaring that the provisions of the Policy targeting Plaintiffs' protected
newsgathering and speech and all actions implementing those provisions are
unlawful and unconstitutional;
b. Vacating and preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendants from
implementing or seeking to enforce those provisions ofthe Policy;
c. Ordering Defendants to reinstate PFACs formerly held by Barnes and The Times'
other reporters;
d. Enteringjudgment in favor ofPlaintiffs;
e. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorney's fees in accordance with
law; and
f. Issuing any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
39Case 1 :25- cv- 04218 Document 1 Filed 12/04/25 Page41 of41
Dated : December 4, 2025 Respectfully submitted
,
420440)
Katie Townsend
(D.D.C. Bar No. 1026115
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com
/ s/ Theodore J. Boutrous
333 South Grand Avenue
, Jr.
Theodore J. Boutrous , Jr. (D.D.C. Bar No.
)
Los Angeles , CA 90071-3197
213 ) 229-7000
KTownsend@gibsondunn.com
Lee R. Crain (D.D.C. Bar No. NY0337
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, New York
212)
351-4000
LCrain@gibsondunn.com
(
)
(
Susan Pelletier*
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1700 M Street
, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202)
955-8500
SPelletier@gibsondunn.com
(
Counsel for Plaintiffs The New York Times
*pro hac vice application forthcoming
Company and Julian E. Barnes
40 40Case 1:25-cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25
Page 1 of 22
EXHIBIT ACase 1:25-cv-04218
DEPARTMENTOF
WAR
A
UNITED STATES
SOF AMERICA
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25
ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARYOF WAR
1400 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-1400
Page 2 of22
OCT 06 2025
MEMORANDUM FOR SENIOR PENTAGONLEADERSHIP
SUBJECT: Implementation of New Media In-brief
The attached documents implement the Secretary ofWarmemorandum,
"Updated
Physical Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the Pentagon,
" dated May 23, 2025.
All members of the press requesting to be issued a Pentagon Facility Alternate Credential
(PFAC), will be required to read and sign the updated in-brief form outlining information
security requirements, the new physical control measures, and Department of Warexpectations
of their compliance with safety and security requirements. This memorandum and attachments
supersede the "Implementation ofNew Media In-Brief,
" dated September 18, 2025.
The package that will be provided to the member ofthe press as part ofthe in-brief
includes the following:
Pentagon Reservation In-brieffor Media Members
Appendix A,
"Denial, Revocation, or Non-Renewal of Pentagon Facility Alternative
Credentials"
Appendix B,
"Additional Press Identifier Badge"
Appendix C, SW memo,
"Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/Media
Access Within the Pentagon "
Appendix D, graphic showing the areas on the first and second floor of the Pentagon
where press do not require a new escort
Appendix E, graphic showing the route that press can take to access theRiver
Entrance on weekends and holidays
In addition to the Additional Press Identifier Badge depicted in Appendix B, the Pentagon
Force Protection Agency (PFPA ) will begin issuing new PFACs to the press in coming weeks.
Priority of issuance ofthe new PFACS will be to members of the news media, including
equipment crew members, with existing PFACS expiring by October 31 , 2025, and will run
through October 31 , 2025. Beginning November 1 , 2025, PFPA will then commence issuing new
PFACS for members of the news media with existing PFACS expiring after October 31, 2025,
starting with resident members (i.e., those with current authorized workspace in the Pentagon),
followed by non-resident members. The new PFACS will have"PRESS" clearly imprinted on
them in red letters both vertically and horizontally to assist in identifying members of the press
within the Pentagon.
I request your assistance in ensuring that all personnel in your Component are aware of
the physical control measures, including the requirement to provide escorts for media coming
into your spaces for approved interviews. Additionally, if personnel see any news media outside
of the areas depicted in Appendix D that do not have an escort, they should direct them back to
the designated no-escort required areas and alert the Pentagon Press Operations officeat 703-
697-5131.Case 1: 25 -cv-04218 Document 1-1 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of22
My POC for this action is Mr. Christopher Garver, Pentagon Press Operations,
christopher.c.garver.civ@mail.mil or 703-695-3886.
Slee
No comments:
Post a Comment