April 27, 2026 — A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the Defense Department may require reporters to be escorted on Pentagon grounds while the Biden administration appeals a lower court decision that limited a new press-access policy.
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the government’s emergency request to pause parts of U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman’s April 9 order. The panel said the administration has a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits in defending the policy’s escort requirement as legally permissible while the case proceeds.
The dispute stems from a set of restrictions the Pentagon put in place last fall governing reporters who cover the military. Several major outlets — including CBS News, ABC, NBC, CNN and Fox — declined to sign the conditions required for continued daily access. The New York Times sued, and in March Friedman struck down parts of the policy as unconstitutional, objecting to several provisions he found overbroad; among them was language suggesting reporters who “solicit” sensitive material could be labeled security risks and expelled.
After Friedman’s ruling, the Defense Department issued a revised access policy that barred reporters from certain buildings unless accompanied by government escorts. Friedman later said that step violated his order to restore unescorted access, prompting the government to seek relief from the appeals court.
Circuit Judges Justin Walker and Bradley Garcia, appointed respectively by Presidents Trump and Biden, formed the majority and wrote that an agency may adopt a revised policy in response to an adverse ruling while the matter is under review. Biden appointee Judge J. Michelle Childs dissented, warning that constant escorting undermines reporters’ ability to verify sources, gather information, and speak candidly with department personnel.
Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell praised the panel’s decision and said the department looks forward to arguing the case on the merits. In a social media statement, Parnell asserted that unescorted access had contributed to “regular unauthorized disclosure of sensitive and classified national defense information,” and that the current policy has meaningfully reduced such disclosures, which he said can endanger service members, intelligence personnel and allies.
The New York Times’ lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, called the appeals ruling “narrow” and preliminary, saying it does not undercut the newspaper’s constitutional claims. He added the Times intends to defend the full scope of the district court’s rulings in the ongoing appeal.
The case now returns to the D.C. Circuit for further briefing and argument on the underlying constitutional issues involving press access, government restrictions, and national-security concerns.