A federal judge ruled on April 9 that the Pentagon’s policy of excluding unescorted media from its buildings violated his previous court order.

“By adopting and enforcing portions of the policy pertaining to Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials that was promulgated by the Department of Defense on March 23, 2026 in a Memorandum ... Defendants are in violation of the Order this Court issued on March 20, 2026,” U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman wrote in the brief order.

The New York Times had sued the Department of War after it gave reporters an ultimatum last year: Sign an agreement not to solicit unauthorized information from Pentagon employees or give up their press credentials.

On March 20, Friedman ruled in favor of the newspaper and declared the government’s policy unconstitutional.

Following the ruling, the Pentagon instituted a new policy. It restored press credentials to some reporters but banned all journalists from entering the Pentagon without an escort while it appealed Friedman’s ruling.

The government argued that the interim policy didn’t violate the judge’s previous order, but The New York Times sued again, alleging the Pentagon had simply crafted a workaround to the judge’s ruling.

Responding to the latest ruling, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in an April 10 statement that the department plans to challenge the decision while defending its actions as compliant with the court’s directives.

“The Department disagrees with the Court’s ruling and intends to appeal,” Parnell said.

“The Department has at all times complied with the Court’s Order—it reinstated the PFACs of every journalist identified in the Order and issued a materially revised policy that addressed every concern the Court identified in its March 20 Opinion.”

Parnell added that the Pentagon “remains committed to press access” while also fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure “the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation.”

In his latest order, Friedman said the Department of War’s revised policy amounted to an attempt to sidestep the court’s earlier ruling by imposing new restrictions that effectively limit journalists’ access.

“The department simply cannot reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action and expect the court to look the other way,” Friedman wrote in a 20-page opinion.

Friedman noted that while the Pentagon reinstated credentials for certain reporters, the access now granted “is not even close to as meaningful as the broad access” journalists previously had inside the building.

The judge had earlier ordered the Pentagon to restore credentials to multiple reporters from The New York Times and said that his ruling applied broadly to all affected media, not just the plaintiffs.

Attorneys for the newspaper said the decision “powerfully vindicates both the Court’s authority and the First Amendment’s protections of independent journalism,” after accusing the Pentagon of “openly flouting” the court’s March 20 order.

Under the revised March 23 policy, journalists are barred from entering the Pentagon unescorted, the correspondents’ corridor has been shut down, and reporters have been relocated to an annex facility outside the main building.

In its motion, The New York Times accused the Pentagon of defying the court by issuing an “interim policy” that prevented journalists from “engaging in independent, protected newsgathering and reporting” at the Department of War.

“Among other things, for the first time in history, the interim policy bars reporters with press passes from entering the building without an escort, sets up unprecedented rules governing when a reporter can offer anonymity to a source, and leaves in place provisions that this court’s order struck,” the publication stated.

Government attorneys have argued that the revised rules are a lawful temporary measure while the administration appeals and that the court’s order does not prevent the Pentagon from implementing new credentialing policies addressing security concerns.

“​​In effect, Plaintiffs ask this Court to expand the Order to prohibit the Department from ever addressing the security of the Pentagon through a press credentialing policy with conditions that may address similar topics or concerns as the enjoined conditions,” government attorneys wrote in a briefing.

“The Order does not say that, and this Court should not read it to say that.”

Most members of the Pentagon press corps declined to sign the earlier policy and lost their credentials. However, some—including The Epoch Times—agreed to the government’s terms and retained access under the new rules.