Just a few days ago, The New York Times filed a sweeping lawsuit accusing the Pentagon of violating the First and Fifth Amendments by updating the rules for Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials. 

The Times frames these rules as an attack on journalism itself. That framing is completely inaccurate. The Department of War implemented a policy aimed at securing one of the most sensitive buildings in the United States, and the policy neither restricts publication nor bars legitimate reporting. 

It simply establishes basic conditions for physical access to the Pentagon. 

Those conditions are lawful, reasonable, and consistent with long-standing principles governing access to nonpublic government facilities.

What the Times avoids acknowledging is that no journalist has a constitutional right to roam the Pentagon on an unescorted basis. Courts have been clear for decades that facilities such as the Pentagon are “nonpublic forums,” allowing the government to impose reasonable access limits that protect security and operational integrity. 

Access can be granted or denied based on compliance with building rules. It cannot be demanded as if the First Amendment guarantees a permanent press badge. 

The new Pentagon policy does not regulate what the Times may print, what sources it may speak with, or what stories it may pursue. It regulates whether a reporter may carry a credential that functions as a secure building pass.

Under the updated system, reporters seeking Pentagon Facilities Alternative Credentials (PFACs) must acknowledge that the Pentagon expects credentialed visitors not to solicit or encourage the unauthorized release of protected information. 

Federal employees already face strict rules governing how classified and controlled unclassified information is handled. The Pentagon’s policy simply reflects that reality: if reporters want special access inside a secure military headquarters, they cannot use that access to induce potential violations of federal disclosure rules. 

That standard does not restrict publication. It applies only to conduct inside a restricted facility and to abuses of the access privilege itself.

The Times argues that prohibiting solicitation of unauthorized disclosures “chills journalism.” 

It does not. 

The policy explicitly states that receiving unsolicited information and publishing it remains protected. Reporters may continue reporting aggressively, including through FOIA requests, off-site interviews, and anonymous sourcing. 

The Pentagon is not attempting to dictate content or impose prior approval. It requires that credentialed reporters respect the same security boundaries every Pentagon employee must follow. That condition is neither novel nor unreasonable.

The complaint also claims the policy creates “unbridled discretion” for Pentagon officials to suspend credentials. This ignores the processes built directly into the policy: written notification, opportunity to appeal, and a final determination by authorized officials. 

Legacy outlets enjoyed far more discretion under the old norm, in which major national papers received PFACs while independent and conservative outlets remained excluded. The new structure replaces that informal system with a clearer standard, one that applies uniformly regardless of newsroom size or viewpoint.

The Times’ objections are not really about constitutional law. The entire lawsuit focuses on the composition of the new Pentagon press corps. 

After refusing to sign the acknowledgment, the Times and nearly all similar outlets voluntarily surrendered their PFACs. 

At the same time, outlets willing to comply—ranging from established conservative publications to emerging platforms—were credentialed. 

The Gateway Pundit is among those newly credentialed outlets. Its inclusion reflects a broader shift toward a more representative press corps rather than the narrow, legacy-media-dominated system that existed for decades.

The Times points to the fact that some new credential holders have supported President Trump or spoken positively about the administration. That argument concedes the core issue: the Times is attempting to protect its institutional position within the Pentagon rather than defend a neutral principle. 

The First Amendment does not guarantee any outlet, regardless of size or prestige, priority access to federal facilities. It also does not entitle a single ideological bloc to dominate the Pentagon press room.

The lawsuit further asserts that the Pentagon’s policy is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That claim does not align with the evidence. Outlets without PFACs have continued to publish extensive reporting on internal disagreements, personnel decisions, and classified operations. 

They are doing so without interference from the Department of War. 

What they no longer have is automatic, continuous physical access—because they declined to follow the same rules that dozens of other reporters accepted. 

Losing a building pass for refusing the building’s terms is not censorship. Instead, it is a predictable consequence of a voluntary choice.

The Times’ legal theory ultimately tries to convert a policy disagreement into a constitutional crisis. The Pentagon’s responsibility is to safeguard national security, prevent unauthorized disclosures, and ensure operational discipline. 

That mission requires setting rules for physical access. Those rules do not suppress speech, silence dissent, or prevent any outlet from reporting aggressively. They establish conditions for entering one of the most sensitive facilities in the world.

The New York Times may prefer the older system in which legacy outlets held a privileged position inside the Pentagon. But that preference does not create a constitutional right, nor does it invalidate a lawful policy. 

The lawsuit reflects the frustrations of an institution losing exclusive access—not a legitimate First Amendment violation.

It should be noted that The Gateway Pundit received access to cover the Pentagon last week during an orientation process with several real news outlets.

The post The New York Times Is Suing the Pentagon. The Case Is Laughable appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.