WASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman ordered the Defense Department on Tuesday to temporarily halt its requirement that New York Times journalists be accompanied by an official escort. Friedman stated that the escort policy violated the First Amendment.

The judge issued a preliminary ruling barring the requirement while the newspaper continues its legal battle against the department's restrictions. The order did not specify whether journalists from other organizations would also receive relief from that policy.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell posted on X late Tuesday that the department "strongly disagrees" with the decision. "This ruling strips away reasonable security measures and will make it easier for sensitive and classified information to reach our adversaries," Parnell said.

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the newspaper, said the decision reaffirms First Amendment rights. "Today's well-reasoned decision reaffirms the First Amendment rights of the press to cover the Pentagon without restrictions designed to prevent the public from knowing what the military is doing," Stadtlander said. He added, "The court recognized that the Pentagon's hastily implemented new policy was a clear violation of the Constitution."

The newspaper sued the Defense Department in May 2026, marking the second lawsuit against the department in five months. The first suit was filed in December 2025 concerning rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seeking to limit media access. The newspaper and other outlets walked out of the Pentagon in October 2025 rather than agree to the restrictions and continue to cover the U.S. military from outside the building.

The escort policy was implemented in March 2026, after a previous ruling by Friedman struck down earlier restrictions. Friedman stated that those earlier restrictions violated the rights of Times reporter Julian E. Barnes and the newspaper. In April 2026, Friedman ruled that the interim policy violated his March order. The escort policy remained in place when an appeals court stayed part of the ruling while the government appealed. The appeals process is ongoing.