DC Circuit restores Pentagon escort requirement for journalists

WASHINGTON (CN) — A D.C. Circuit panel on Monday temporarily revived a provision of the Pentagon’s restrictive press policy requiring journalists be escorted at all times within the complex.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to allow the escort provision to maintain as the U.S. Department of Defense’s full appeal moves forward.

U.S. Circuit Judges Justin Walker and Bradley Garcia — appointees of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, respectively — granted an emergency stay and said the Pentagon was likely to succeed on the merits that the escort requirement was not properly before Senior U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, who struck down the policy in full after finding it unconstitutional.

The feds relied on the procedural argument that, because the provision was not present in the initial proposed 2025 press policy when the Bill Clinton appointee first sided with the New York Times on March 20 and vacated the policy, Friedman did not hold whether the requirement independently violated the First or Fifth Amendments.

“On this record, the department is likely to succeed in its argument that the escort requirement in particular is a new, generally applicable requirement that is not invalid for violating the district court’s summary judgment order or the constitutional principles underlying it,” the panel wrote.

Under the Pentagon’s October 2025 press policy, journalists could be deemed a “security risk” for disclosing classified or even unclassified information without the Pentagon’s authorization. Dozens of media outlets rejected the rules.

After Friedman granted summary judgment to the Times, the news organization returned to court three days later, informing Friedman the Pentagon had instituted an interim policy that effectively maintained many of the provisions barring journalists from reporting freely and adding the escort requirement.

The Times filed a motion to compel, asking Friedman to vacate the revised version and restore the level of access that existed before the Pentagon implemented its new policy in October 2025.

At a March 30 hearing, Friedman was particularly concerned with the policy’s restriction barring the “intentional inducement of unauthorized disclosure” — the prior version used the term “solicitation” — calling it “way worse.”

Friedman then granted the motion to compel on April 9, slamming Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for reinstating the unlawful policy “under the guise” of taking new agency action and expecting “the court to turn a blind eye.”

On Monday, U.S. Circuit Judge Michelle Childs issued a nine-page dissent and wrote that under her colleagues’ ruling, Pentagon officials will be able to chill reporters’ ability to freely report within the complex.

“Reporters can hardly verify sources, gather information or speak candidly with Department personnel with an escort looming over their shoulders,” the Biden appointee wrote. “Given the district court’s factual findings and the law it applied, the purpose of the injunction was clear: The Department had to give [Pentagon Facilities Alternate Credential] holders unescorted access. That was the status quo through decades and wars — including after the ‘terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001.’”

Childs wrote that her colleagues were effectively rewarding the Pentagon for its effort to evade Friedman’s orders through “creative policymaking.”

“An injunction is not an invitation to circumvention,” Childs wrote. “On March 20, the district court ordered the Department of Defense to restore certain New York Times reporters’ Pentagon press credentials. The Department responded by restoring the credentials but stripping away much of what made them matter: regular, unescorted access to the Pentagon and the press workspace inside it.”

Childs noted that Friedman determined the government was clearly not complying with his order and wrote the government had not adequately shown Friedman erred in interpreting his own injunction.

In its appeal, the Pentagon maintained its initial October 2025 policy was lawful, and thus the revised version did not violate Friedman’s ruling. Childs disagreed and wrote her colleagues should have as well.

She said Friedman had significant authority to determine whether the government was complying with his initial ruling or not, and has wide discretion to ensure the spirit of the order was followed.

If the government felt the order was too burdensome, Childs wrote, the proper avenue would be first to appeal and then request a modification or clarification.

Instead, the government made its own interpretation of the order, created a substitute policy that repeated the same issues as the initial version and insisted it had complied because the new policy was labeled “interim,” Childs wrote.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy