一个由三名法官组成的联邦上诉法院小组做出的决定意味着，记者暂时不能在没有陪同的情况下穿过五角大楼。
陪审团以2比1做出裁决舒克赞成国防部的延期请求部分的的法官下令取消新的记者采访政策。那的一部分在上诉期间，裁决将暂缓执行。
此前，美国地区法官保罗·弗里德曼(Paul Friedman)在3月份做出了有利于《纽约时报》的裁决，后者提起了一项挑战该政策的诉讼。
这些国防部规则于2025年9月实施，要求记者签署一份文件，通知他们如果他们“合理地确定会带来安全或安全风险”，则他们对五角大楼的访问可能会被撤销，因为“未经授权的访问，未经授权的尝试或未经授权的披露”可能是“敏感”的信息，即使是非机密的。
周一，位于华盛顿特区的上诉法院在维持弗里德曼禁令的关键部分时，指出了五角大楼的论点，即它发现了记者在无人陪同下进入大楼与所谓的“敏感或机密信息”泄露之间的相关性。
“国防部因此支持其主张，即其政策的这一方面促进了重要的国家安全利益，”该委员会在其未签署的命令中表示。
但法官们也注意到，要求记者同意某些访问条件，可能会限制他们提出的问题——和谁——以及他们覆盖的主题，可能会影响新闻采集。
“这种负担超出了媒体本身，牵涉到公众对政府运作信息自由流动的兴趣，”法官们说。
在驳回Friedman禁令中与护送有关的部分时，小组发现了五角大楼的决定要求护送是对法官的最初决定的合理回应，该决定将访问政策扩大化。法官们说，这应该被解读为“新的、普遍适用的要求”，并不构成未能遵守弗里德曼早先的决定。
五角大楼发言人肖恩·帕内尔对上诉法院的举动反应积极，特别是上诉法院认可了国防部关于泄密的论点，在X上发布“记者继续持有有效的记者证，并保留参加五角大楼简报会、记者招待会和采访的权利。”
帕内尔写道:“尽管许多媒体告诉你，国务院的政策从来不是限制新闻报道，而是保护机密信息，保护美国人的生命。”。
特朗普任命的法官贾斯汀·沃克和拜登任命的布拉德·加西亚站在国防部一边。但拜登任命的法官米歇尔·查尔兹(Michelle Childs)持不同意见，认为五角大楼实际上试图通过修改政策来规避弗里德曼的禁令。
“一旦法院做出裁决，受其命令约束的当事人就不能通过创造性的政策制定来逃避，”查尔兹在她的异议书中写道。
Pentagon can restrict journalists' access, require them be escorted in building for now, appeals court rules
A decision by a three-judge federal appeals court panel means that journalists will not be able to walk through the Pentagon without an escort for now.
The panel ruled 2-to-1on Monday in favor ofthe Department of Defense's request for a stayof partof ajudge's order striking down its new access policy for reporters. Thatportion of thedecision will be stayed pending the appeal.
This comes after U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled in favor of The New York Times in March, which brought a lawsuit challenging the policy.
Those Defense Department rules, implemented in September 2025, required reporters to sign a document advising them that their access to the Pentagon might be revoked if they are "reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk," based on such things as "unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure of" information that might be "sensitive," even if it's unclassified.
In staying the key part of Friedman’s injunction on Monday, the Washington, D.C.-based appeals court pointed to the Pentagon's argument that it found a correlation between reporters' unescorted building access and alleged leaks of "sensitive or classified information."
"The Department has thus supported its claim that this aspect of its policy furthers important national security interests," the panel said in its unsigned order.
But the judges also noted how requiring reporters to agree to certain access conditions, potentially limiting the questions they ask -- and of whom -- and the subjects they cover, could impact newsgathering.
"That burden extends beyond the press itself, implicating the public’s interest in the free flow of information about government operations," the judges said.
In setting aside the escorted-related portion of Friedman’s injunction, the panelfound the Pentagon’s decisionto require escortswas a legitimate response to the judge's initial decision striking its access policy writ large. That, the judges said, should be read as a "new, generally applicable requirement" and does not constitute a failure to abide by Friedman's earlier decision.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell responded favorably to the appeals court's move, particularly its crediting of the department's arguments on leaks,posting on Xthat "journalists continue to hold valid press credentials and retain access to Pentagon briefings, press conferences, and interviews."
"Despite what many in the media have told you, the Department's policy has never been about limiting journalism - it is about safeguarding classified information that protects American lives," Parnell wrote.
Trump-appointed judge Justin Walker and Biden appointee Brad Garcia sided with the Defense Department. But Biden-appointed judge Michelle Childs dissented, arguing that the Pentagon did in fact seek to circumvent Friedman’s injunction with its revised policy.
"Once a court has spoken, the party bound by its order may not evade it through creative policymaking,” Childs wrote in her dissent.
