The Defense Department can now temporarily require escorts for all journalists who visit the Pentagon, according to a ruling from a federal appeals court on Thursday. The decision, which The New York Times reported on Friday, reverses a June order that halted the escort requirement.
The requirement was halted in the first place due to an ongoing lawsuit from The New York Times, which is seeking to overturn the rule.
“While The Times is disappointed with this interim decision, we appreciate that the court has expedited the appeal and look forward to litigating it on the merits,” the publication said in a statement.
As part of the ruling, two of the three judges on a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote that the escort requirement was “neutrally and evenhandedly applied” and stated that it lacked any “demonstrated distinctive harmful impact” on the newspaper. The third judge would have allowed the pause on the policy to remain.
This battle between the Pentagon and major news outlets can be traced back to October when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth implemented media restrictions that allowed the Defense Department to revoke journalists’ press passes if they were deemed to be “security risks.” Journalists could be dubbed a risk if they tried to seek information from military employees who were not authorized to speak to the press, which is a common part of most journalists’ jobs. In December, the Times sued to block the restrictions, arguing that they were a violation of the First Amendment.
In March, a judge ruled in favor of the Times, which led to the Pentagon revising its policy to include the escort requirement and appealing that judge’s ruling. Two months later, the Times filed a second lawsuit seeking to overturn the escort policy, citing that the rule change was a retaliatory measure that hindered the freedom of the press. That second lawsuit led to Judge Paul L. Friedman — the judge who initially ruled in favor of the Times — temporarily blocking the escort policy in June. His reasoning was that the policy should not be enforced as the matter was being decided in the courts.
