A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense Department can require reporters to be escorted on Pentagon grounds while the Trump administration appeals a lower-court decision ordering restoration of press access for journalists, according to a ruling released Monday.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued the decision by a 2-1 vote, saying the administration is "likely to succeed" in demonstrating that its escort requirement is legally valid while litigation continues.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by The New York Times in December challenging the Pentagon's new press credential policy enacted in October. That policy banned journalists who refused to sign agreements limiting how they could solicit or report on military information.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled March 20 that the Pentagon's restrictions violated the First and Fifth Amendments, ordering restoration of reporters' access to the building.

Defense officials responded by imposing an escort requirement as a new condition for entry rather than fully restoring unescorted access. The Times returned to court, arguing this was an attempted workaround of Friedman's order. Friedman agreed, ruling April 9 that Pentagon officials must comply with his original directive — and it is that decision the administration appealed.

What the Left Is Saying

Civil liberties organizations and press freedom advocates argue the escort requirement fundamentally undermines journalistic independence and the ability to gather news.

"Reporters can hardly verify sources, gather information, or speak candidly with Department personnel with an escort looming over their shoulders," wrote Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs in her dissent.

The Times' legal team called Monday's ruling "a narrow, preliminary one." Attorney Theodore Boutrous said in a statement that attorneys "look forward to defending the full scope of the district court's rulings in The Times's favor in this appeal."

Advocacy groups have argued that restrictions on press access create asymmetric information environments where government officials control which stories get reported and under what conditions.

What the Right Is Saying

Defense Department officials maintain that unescorted journalist access created unacceptable risks to national security by enabling reporters to observe activity patterns and identify potential sources of sensitive information.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell submitted a declaration to the court stating that prior to the new press policy, journalists obtained sensitive or classified information regularly — sometimes multiple times per month — including operational plans and intelligence assessments.

"Unescorted access to the Pentagon was, according to the Department, 'a significant contributing factor' to that pattern," the appeals court's majority ruling noted.

In a statement posted to X on Monday, Parnell said the department has seen "a meaningful reduction in these unauthorized disclosures" since implementing current restrictions, adding that such leaks "can endanger the lives of service members, intelligence personnel, and our allies."

The administration argues it retains authority to set reasonable conditions for access to secure military facilities.

What the Numbers Show

Monday's ruling is not a final decision on the merits of the underlying lawsuit. The case remains pending before the D.C. Circuit.

Judge Justin Walker and Judge Bradley Garcia formed the majority; Judge J. Michelle Childs dissented.

Friedman's original March 20 order found the Pentagon policy violated both First Amendment press protections and Fifth Amendment due process rights.

The October credentialing changes represented a significant departure from previous decades of relatively open Pentagon access for accredited journalists.

The Bottom Line

Monday's ruling allows the administration to maintain its escort requirement while litigation proceeds, meaning reporters can continue to cover the Pentagon but under modified conditions.

The case is expected to reach a final resolution on appeal. Both sides have signaled intent to fully litigate the constitutional questions involved.

Press freedom advocates say restrictions on source verification and candid conversations with officials could affect the depth and accuracy of reporting on military matters — one of the most consequential beats in Washington.

What happens next: The D.C. Circuit will hear full arguments on whether the Pentagon's overall press credentialing policy, including both the original restrictions and the escort requirement, complies with constitutional protections.