Judge Grants Temporary Block of Pentagon’s Press Escort Policy

The Trump administration required members of the press to be escorted in specified areas of the Pentagon.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (L) and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine speak during a press conference on U.S. military action in Iran at the Pentagon in Washington on March 2, 2026. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

A federal judge reviewing The New York Times’ latest challenge of press restrictions at the Pentagon has sided with the outlet, granting news media temporary reprieve from the Trump administration’s requirements for press to be escorted in specified areas of the Pentagon, while the lawsuit against the restriction and other requirements is ongoing.

The case began in December 2025, when The New York Times sued the Department of War (DoW) over its new press credentialing policy. The Pentagon had earlier introduced tightened access over concerns about national and operational security, requiring journalists to agree not to report information that had not been approved for public release. Many outlets challenged the policy as an unconstitutional restriction on press freedom.

The policy was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in March. In response, the Pentagon issued an interim policy with escort requirements for press access to areas previously accessible unescorted—such as the Pentagon Press Briefing Room, the Correspondents’ Corridor that had dedicated workspace for journalists, and areas in the vicinity of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s office—scaling back reporters’ ability to roam the Pentagon’s corridors. The workspaces were to be moved to an “annex facility” on Pentagon grounds but outside the building.

In June 2026, the Pentagon designated parts of its press office as a classified space, barring unescorted journalists from entering. Access to certain areas on the first floor, including the center courtyard and food court, and some corridors and entrance areas on the second floor remained escort-free.

The New York Times sued again, arguing that the restrictions remained in violation of the existing court order. A federal judge on April 9 ordered the Pentagon to continue to grant escort-free access to the press. The Pentagon then sought and won a narrow stay, allowing it to implement only the escort requirements in the Interim Policy while its appeal is pending.

The newspaper then filed for a temporary freeze of the stay, arguing that the escort requirement continues to be in violation of the First Amendment and an arbitrary and capricious action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Temporary Block

Friedman on June 30 granted The New York Times’ request for a preliminary injunction, saying he found the factors in the case weighing in favor of the plaintiffs.

“The plaintiffs have marshaled compelling evidence connecting the imposition of the escort requirement to their protected speech,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

“Journalists, of course, do not ‘have access to sensitive or classified information simply by being in [the Pentagon] without an escort,’” he said. “The Department does not dispute that fact, asserting instead that unescorted access ‘logically ... increases the risk’ of journalists obtaining such information.”

“The Court concludes on the record before it that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their First Amendment retaliation claim,” Friedman said.

The Epoch Times has contacted The New York Times for comment.

In a statement to media outlets, a New York Times spokesperson said, “Today’s well-reasoned decision reaffirms the First Amendment rights of the press to cover the Pentagon without restrictions designed to prevent the public from knowing what the military is doing. The court recognized that the Pentagon’s hastily implemented new policy was a clear violation of the Constitution.”

The Pentagon’s chief spokesman Sean Parnell said the DoW will appeal the decision.

“The Department strongly disagrees with today’s decision. This ruling strips away reasonable security measures and will make it easier for sensitive and classified information to reach our adversaries,” he said in a statement on X.

“Unescorted access to the Pentagon allowed journalists to observe activity patterns and develop relationships that contributed to repeated unauthorized disclosures of operational plans and intelligence. The court’s order effectively restores that risky environment at a time when protecting our military’s secrets is more critical than ever.”

Parnell said it remains necessary “to restore the Department’s ability to secure the Pentagon Reservation and prevent further harm to national security.”

The Pentagon Reservation refers to a legal term for the designated areas under the control of the DoW, which are subject to decades-old security review requirements, such as those outlined by the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review for the public release of DoW information.

The long-time policy predating the Trump administration requires any information proposed for public release to be internally reviewed to “ensure compliance with established national and [DoW] policies, and to determine that it contains no classified, controlled unclassified, export-controlled, or operational security related information.”

Rules for Release of Department Information

Unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including to the media, “does not automatically result in the declassification of the information,” the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review says on its website.

In the DoW’s Oct. 6, 2025, policy memorandum, titled “Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the Pentagon,” the department clarified that “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.”

“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,” the memo said. “However, they should understand that DoW personnel may face adverse consequences for unauthorized disclosures. Any solicitation of DoW personnel to commit criminal acts would not be considered protected activity under the 1st Amendment.”

The policy document added that news media in possession of classified national security information or controlled unclassified information “should discuss those materials with the PPO prior to publication.”

But the department has yet to find a way to legally enforce its policy amid the multiple court losses and ongoing preliminary injunctions blocking parts of its rules.

Aldgra Fredly contributed to this report.