Judge Rules Pentagon Restrictions on Press Are Unconstitutional; The New York Times, March 20, 2026

Erik Wemple , The New York Times; Judge Rules Pentagon Restrictions on Press Are Unconstitutional

A federal judge tossed parts of the Pentagon’s restrictions on news outlets, saying they violated the First Amendment, in a lawsuit brought by The New York Times.

"A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Pentagon’s restrictions on news outlets violate the First Amendment and issued an order tossing parts of the Defense Department’s policy, handing a victory to The New York Times, which filed suit in December over the restrictions.

Judge Paul Friedman, of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also ordered the Pentagon to restore the press passes of seven journalists for The Times. They had surrendered those passes in October instead of signing the policy, which empowered the Pentagon to declare journalists “security risks” and revoke their press passes if they engaged in any conduct that the Pentagon believed threatened national security.

In his 40-page ruling, Judge Friedman wrote that the Pentagon’s policy rewarded reporters who were “willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by department leadership.”

Siding with an argument advanced by The Times, Judge Friedman added that the Pentagon had given itself too much power to enforce its new rules. The policy also violates journalists’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, he said, writing that it “provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

Trump Is Said to Have Dropped Demand for Cash From Harvard; The New York Times, February 2, 2026

Michael C. Bender, Michael S. Schmidt and Alan Blinder, The New York Times ; Trump Is Said to Have Dropped Demand for Cash From Harvard 

Hours after The Times reported that President Trump had lowered the bar for a deal, he denied backtracking and made new threats against Harvard.

"President Trump has backtracked on a major point in negotiations with Harvard, dropping his administration’s demand for a $200 million payment to the government in hopes of finally resolving the administration’s conflicts with the university, according to four people briefed on the matter.

Harvard has been the top target in Mr. Trump’s sweeping campaign to exert more control over higher education. Hard-liners in his administration had wanted Harvard to write a check to the U.S. Treasury as part of a deal to address claims that university officials mishandled antisemitism, The New York Times previously reported. But Harvard, wary of backlash from liberal students and faculty, has rejected the idea.

Trump administration officials have indicated in recent days that the president no longer expects such a payment, according to the Harvard and Trump officials briefed on the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

But shortly before midnight, six hours after The Times reported that Mr. Trump had backtracked, he claimed the story was wrong and attacked The Times and Harvard. He said he was now seeking $1 billion “in damages” from Harvard and that the administration’s investigations of Harvard should now be criminal."

How We Determined That Minneapolis Videos Contradicted Federal Officials; The New York Times, January 26, 2026

Mark Scheffler, The New York Times ; How We Determined That Minneapolis Videos Contradicted Federal Officials

"The first viral video from Minneapolis last Saturday morning told only a partial story: Federal agents skirmish in the street with several civilians. Officers bring a man to the ground. Gunshots go off.

What were the federal officers doing? What preceded the confrontation? What went on in the scuffle? Who fired? Who was the man? Was he alive or dead?

There are often more questions than answers in the work of the Visual Investigations team at The New York Times. Our job is to assemble and analyze visual material — including video footage taken by both witnesses and security cameras — to piece together chaotic events and present as full a picture of what happened as we can.

Our goal isn’t to establish guilt or innocence. We aren’t a court of law. Instead, we establish what we call ground truth: what happened, how it happened and who might be responsible. We follow the visuals wherever they take us, not to a predetermined conclusion. In doing so, this work can start to establish accountability."

The New York Times is suing Perplexity for copyright infringement; TechCrunch, December 5, 2025

 Rebecca Bellan , TechCrunch; The New York Times is suing Perplexity for copyright infringement

"The New York Times filed suit Friday against AI search startup Perplexity for copyright infringement, its second lawsuit against an AI company. The Times joins several media outlets suing Perplexity, including the Chicago Tribune, which also filed suit this week."

OpenAI loses fight to keep ChatGPT logs secret in copyright case; Reuters, December 3, 2025

 Blake Brittain, Reuters ; OpenAI loses fight to keep ChatGPT logs secret in copyright case

"OpenAI must produce millions of anonymized chat logs from ChatGPT users in its high-stakes copyright dispute with the New York Times and other news outlets, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona Wang in a decision made public on Wednesday said that the 20 million logs were relevant to the outlets' claims and that handing them over would not risk violating users' privacy."

New York Times Sues Pentagon Over First Amendment Rights; The New York Times, December 4, 2025

Erik Wemple, The New York Times ; New York Times Sues Pentagon Over First Amendment Rights

"The New York Times accused the Pentagon in a lawsuit on Thursday of infringing on the constitutional rights of journalists by imposing a set of new restrictions on reporting about the military.

In the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, The Times argued that the Defense Department’s new policy violated the First Amendment and “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.”

The rules, which went into effect in October, are a stark departure from the previous ones, in both length and scope. They require reporters to sign a 21-page form that sets restrictions on journalistic activities, including requests for story tips and inquiries to Pentagon sources. Reporters who don’t comply could lose their press passes, and the Pentagon has accorded itself “unbridled discretion” to enforce the policy as it sees fit, according to the lawsuit."

Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times is meritless, First Amendment experts say; CNN, September 17, 2025

Brian Stelter, Liam Reilly, CNN ; Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times is meritless, First Amendment experts say

"President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times is meritless, according to half a dozen lawyers and First Amendment scholars who spoke with CNN.

But Trump’s chances in court are almost beside the point, some of the experts said, because the president seems to want a political rather than legal or financial victory.

Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard Law School, said the 85-page suit “is a statement of contempt for truth, the American public, the judicial process, and everything that deserves our respect in the American tradition.”

However, Tushnet said, “to pick through its legal defects, such as the complaints about statements about Fred Trump — a deceased man who cannot be defamed — is to ignore its purpose: to threaten any criticism of Trump.”

MAGA Attorney Threatens To Sue Journalists Over ‘Unpatriotic’ Reporting; Gets The Exact Response He Deserves; Above The Law, June 27, 2025

Kathryn Rubino , Above The Law; MAGA Attorney Threatens To Sue Journalists Over ‘Unpatriotic’ Reporting; Gets The Exact Response He Deserves

[Kip Currier: The New York Times' refusal to capitulate to Trump administration bullying of reporters and defamation lawsuit threats regarding NYT reporting on the Iran bombings earlier this week is a model for other news organizations. As NYT attorney David McCraw explained in his response letter to a Trump lawyer calling for a retraction and apology:

“No retraction is needed.” He continued, “No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.”"]

The paragraph right before that rebuke, though, is equally assertive but articulates the public's interest in access to truthful reporting and the ability to assess leadership decision-making in a democracy:

But let's not lose sight of the larger point to be made. The American public has a right to know whether the attack on Iran -- funded by taxpayer dollars and of enormous consequence to every citizen -- was a success. We rely on our intelligence services to provide the kind of impartial assessment that we all need in a democracy to judge our country's foreign policy and the quality of our leaders' decisions. It would be irresponsible for a news organization to suppress that information and deny the public the right to hear it. And it would be even more irresponsible for a president to use the threat of libel litigation to try to silence a publication that dared to report that the trained, professional, and patriotic intelligence experts employed by the U.S. government thought that the President may have gotten it wrong in his initial remarks to the country."] 

[Excerpt]

"President Donald Trump doesn’t like anyone asking too many questions about the Iran strikes he unilaterally authorized. In fact, when news outlets report that the bombings were not as destructive as Trump initially boasted, he (and other members of his administration

(Opens in a new window)) lashed out at members of the media. On Truth Social, he called out(Opens in a new window) journalists from CNN and the New York Times as “fake news reporters” who are “bad people with evil intentions.” 

But that wasn’t the end of Trump’s tantrum. His personal attorney Alejandro Brito sent letters to the NYT (Opens in a new window)and CNN(Opens in a new window), full of legal bluster. The missives demand they “retract and apologize” the reporting for “false,” “defamatory,” and “unpatriotic” reporting, First Amendment be damned!

The Fourth Estate is more functional than Biglaw(Opens in a new window), so in the face of these threats, the outlets responded with stinging rebukes.

David McCraw, the lawyer for the Times replied(Opens in a new window), “No retraction is needed.” He continued, “No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.”"

Copyright Cases Should Not Threaten Chatbot Users’ Privacy; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), June 23, 2025

 TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Copyright Cases Should Not Threaten Chatbot Users’ Privacy

"Like users of all technologies, ChatGPT users deserve the right to delete their personal data. Nineteen U.S. States, the European Union, and a host of other countries already protect users’ right to delete. For years, OpenAI gave users the option to delete their conversations with ChatGPT, rather than let their personal queries linger on corporate servers. Now, they can’t. A badly misguided court order in a copyright lawsuit requires OpenAI to store all consumer ChatGPT conversations indefinitely—even if a user tries to delete them. This sweeping order far outstrips the needs of the case and sets a dangerous precedent by disregarding millions of users’ privacy rights.

The privacy harms here are significant. ChatGPT’s 300+ million users submit over 1 billion messages to its chatbots per day, often for personal purposes. Virtually any personal use of a chatbot—anything from planning family vacations and daily habits to creating social media posts and fantasy worlds for Dungeons and Dragons games—reveal personal details that, in aggregate, create a comprehensive portrait of a person’s entire life. Other uses risk revealing people’s most sensitive information. For example, tens of millions of Americans use ChatGPT to obtain medical and financial information. Notwithstanding other risks of these uses, people still deserve privacy rights like the right to delete their data. Eliminating protections for user-deleted data risks chilling beneficial uses by individuals who want to protect their privacy."

OpenAI to appeal copyright ruling in NY Times case as Altman calls for 'AI privilege'; Foxbusiness, June 6, 2025

 Bradford Betz, Foxbusiness; OpenAI to appeal copyright ruling in NY Times case as Altman calls for 'AI privilege'

"The OpenAI co-founder said the case has accelerated the need for a conversation about "AI privilege," in which "talking to an AI should be like talking to a lawyer or a doctor.""

Judge allows 'New York Times' copyright case against OpenAI to go forward; NPR, March 27, 2025

 Bobby Allyn, NPR ; Judge allows 'New York Times' copyright case against OpenAI to go forward

"A federal judge on Wednesday rejected OpenAI's request to toss out a copyright lawsuit from The New York Times that alleges that the tech company exploited the newspaper's content without permission or payment.

In an order allowing the lawsuit to go forward, Judge Sidney Stein, of the Southern District of New York, narrowed the scope of the lawsuit but allowed the case's main copyright infringement claims to go forward.

Stein did not immediately release an opinion but promised one would come "expeditiously."

The decision is a victory for the newspaper, which has joined forces with other publishers, including The New York Daily News and the Center for Investigative Reporting, to challenge the way that OpenAI collected vast amounts of data from the web to train its popular artificial intelligence service, ChatGPT."

Have You Seen Changes to Federal Buildings? Send Us Photos.; The New York Times, February 5, 2025

 Claire Cain Miller and Margot Sanger-Katz, The New York Times; Have You Seen Changes to Federal Buildings? Send Us Photos.

"We’re looking to document changes in the physical appearances of federal buildings during the transition to the Trump administration.

If you work in a federal building and have seen differences in your physical environment — new wall décor, artwork coming down or being put up, photos covered up or anything else — we’d like to see photographs of the new space. If you have photos of how it looked before, you are also encouraged to enclose those.

The form below will allow you to submit photos of federal buildings and provide information about where and when the photos were taken. You can also reach us securely at nytimes.com/tips.

We may publish any photograph you share in The New York Times. We will never publish your name without permission, but it would help to provide at least one method of contacting you in case we need to reach out about your submission."

'The New York Times' takes OpenAI to court. ChatGPT's future could be on the line; NPR, January 14, 2025

 Bobby Allyn, NPR; 'The New York Times' takes OpenAI to court. ChatGPT's future could be on the line

"A group of news organizations, led by The New York Times, took ChatGPT maker OpenAI to federal court on Tuesday in a hearing that could determine whether the tech company has to face the publishers in a high-profile copyright infringement trial.

Three publishers' lawsuits against OpenAI and its financial backer Microsoft have been merged into one case. Leading each of the three combined cases are the Times, The New York Daily News and the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Other publishers, like the Associated Press, News Corp. and Vox Media, have reached content-sharing deals with OpenAI, but the three litigants in this case are taking the opposite path: going on the offensive."

OpenAI accidentally deleted potential evidence in NY Times copyright lawsuit; TechCrunch, November 20, 2024

 Kyle Wiggers , TechCrunch; OpenAI accidentally deleted potential evidence in NY Times copyright lawsuit

"OpenAI tried to recover the data — and was mostly successful. However, because the folder structure and file names were “irretrievably” lost, the recovered data “cannot be used to determine where the news plaintiffs’ copied articles were used to build [OpenAI’s] models,” per the letter.

“News plaintiffs have been forced to recreate their work from scratch using significant person-hours and computer processing time,” counsel for The Times and Daily News wrote. “The news plaintiffs learned only yesterday that the recovered data is unusable and that an entire week’s worth of its experts’ and lawyers’ work must be re-done, which is why this supplemental letter is being filed today.”

The plaintiffs’ counsel makes clear that they have no reason to believe the deletion was intentional. But they do say the incident underscores that OpenAI “is in the best position to search its own datasets” for potentially infringing content using its own tools."

Why The New York Times' lawyers are inspecting OpenAI's code in a secretive room; Business Insider, October 10, 2024

 Jacob Shamsian  , Business Insider; Why The New York Times' lawyers are inspecting OpenAI's code in a secretive room

"OpenAI is worth $157 billion largely because of the success of ChatGPT. But to build the chatbot, the company trained its models on vast quantities of text it didn't pay a penny for.

That text includes stories from The New York Times, articles from other publications, and an untold number of copyrighted books.

The examination of the code for ChatGPT, as well as for Microsoft's artificial intelligence models built using OpenAI's technology, is crucial for the copyright infringement lawsuits against the two companies.

Publishers and artists have filed about two dozen major copyright lawsuits against generative AI companies. They are out for blood, demanding a slice of the economic pie that made OpenAI the dominant player in the industry and which pushed Microsoft's valuation beyond $3 trillion. Judges deciding those cases may carve out the legal parameters for how large language models are trained in the US."

The New York Times’ AI copyright lawsuit shows that forgiveness might not be better than permission; The Conversation, February 13, 2024

 Peter Vaughan, Senior Lecturer, Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University, The Conversation; ; The New York Times’ AI copyright lawsuit shows that forgiveness might not be better than permission

"The lawsuit also presents a novel argument – not advanced by other, similar cases – that’s related to something called “hallucinations”, where AI systems generate false or misleading information but present it as fact. This argument could in fact be one of the most potent in the case.

The NYT case in particular raises three interesting takes on the usual approach. First, that due to their reputation for trustworthy news and information, NYT content has enhanced value and desirability as training data for use in AI. 

Second, that due to its paywall, the reproduction of articles on request is commercially damaging. Third, that ChatGPT “hallucinations” are causing reputational damage to the New York Times through, effectively, false attribution. 

This is not just another generative AI copyright dispute. The first argument presented by the NYT is that the training data used by OpenAI is protected by copyright, and so they claim the training phase of ChatGPT infringed copyright. We have seen this type of argument run before in other disputes."

Complaint: New York Times v. Microsoft & OpenAI, December 2023

Complaint: 

THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, OPENAI, INC., OPENAI LP, OPENAI GP, LLC, OPENAI, LLC, OPENAI OPCO LLC, OPENAI GLOBAL LLC, OAI CORPORATION, LLC, and OPENAI HOLDINGS, LLC,

Defendants

The Times Sues OpenAI and Microsoft Over A.I. Use of Copyrighted Work; The New York Times, December 27, 2023

 Michael M. Grynbaum and Ryan Mac, The New York Times; The Times Sues OpenAI and Microsoft Over A.I. Use of Copyrighted Work

"The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement on Wednesday, opening a new front in the increasingly intense legal battle over the unauthorized use of published work to train artificial intelligence technologies.

The Times is the first major American media organization to sue the companies, the creators of ChatGPT and other popular A.I. platforms, over copyright issues associated with its written works. The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, contends that millions of articles published by The Times were used to train automated chatbots that now compete with the news outlet as a source of reliable information.

The suit does not include an exact monetary demand. But it says the defendants should be held responsible for “billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages” related to the “unlawful copying and use of The Times’s uniquely valuable works.” It also calls for the companies to destroy any chatbot models and training data that use copyrighted material from The Times."

NYT report leads to calls for ethics code for Supreme Court justices; WBUR, November 22, 2022

WBUR ; NYT report leads to calls for ethics code for Supreme Court justices

"The New York Times reported over the weekend that a whistleblower says in 2014, an activist at a dinner with Justice Samuel Alito and his wife was told about a Supreme Court decision before it was released. That report is prompting calls for Justices to follow an ethics code, like lower court judges.

Here & Now's Robin Young speaks with Amanda Frost, law professor at the University of Virginia.

This segment aired on November 22, 2022."

Inside The Russian Disinformation Playbook: Exploit Tension, Sow Chaos; Fresh Air with Terry Gross via 91.7 FM San Francisco KALW,

[Podcast] Fresh Air with Terry Gross via 91.7 FM San Francisco KALW; Inside The Russian Disinformation Playbook: Exploit Tension, Sow Chaos

"This is FRESH AIR I'm Terry Gross. The Russian playbook for spreading fake news and conspiracy theories is the subject of a new three-part video series on The New York Times website titled "Operation Infektion: Russian Disinformation: From The Cold War To Kanye." One episode goes back to the 1980s, when the Russians created and spread the conspiracy theory that the AIDS virus was created by the U.S. military for use as a biological weapon. The other episodes are "The Seven Commandments Of Fake News" and "The Worldwide War On Truth." My guest, Adam Ellick, produced and co-directed the series. He's the executive producer of opinion video at The New York Times, which is a new feature on their website.

Previously, he was senior international video correspondent and a reporter at the Times who focused on human rights. When he was reporting from Pakistan in 2009, he was the first journalist to tell the story of Malala and how, with her father, she fought for girls to have the right to attend school. That was three years before she was shot. In 2015, Ellick co-produced a Pulitzer Prize-winning video about an Afghan woman who was burned to death by a mob. Ellick won three Overseas Press Club awards for his coverage of Pakistan and the Arab Spring. He produced videos from North Korea one year ago.

Adam Ellick, welcome to FRESH AIR. So I want to start with the conspiracy theory about the AIDS virus. And you track how this originates with Russian fake news, with Russian disinformation. So just describe the conspiracy theory for those people who don't remember it."