A federal judge has issued a preliminary ruling prohibiting the Department of Defense from requiring New York Times journalists to be escorted by officials within the Pentagon.

一名聯邦法官已發布初步裁決，禁止國防部要求《紐約時報》的記者在五角大廈內必須由官員陪同。

The judicial intervention by U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman is predicated upon the determination that the escort requirement constitutes a violation of the First Amendment. This legal development follows a protracted series of litigations initiated by The New York Times, beginning in December with challenges to access restrictions implemented by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The specific escort policy was instituted in March, subsequent to a prior judicial determination that earlier restrictions—specifically those permitting the revocation of press credentials based on perceived security risks—were unconstitutional.

美國地區法官 Paul L. Friedman 的司法干預是基於一項判定，即隨行陪同的要求構成對第一修正案的違反。此次法律進展繼《紐約時報》發起的一系列漫長訴訟之後，始於 12 月對國防部長 Pete Hegseth 實施的進入限制提出質疑。該項特定的隨行政策於 3 月實施，在此之前法院已判定，先前基於感知安全風險而撤銷記者證明的限制是違憲的。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a profound divergence in institutional perspectives. The New York Times characterizes the ruling as a reaffirmation of constitutional protections against measures intended to obstruct public oversight of military operations. Conversely, the Department of Defense, via spokesperson Sean Parnell, maintains that the ruling compromises national security by removing necessary safeguards against the unauthorized dissemination of classified intelligence. The Department further contends that the First Amendment does not guarantee the most convenient mode of access. While the current injunction applies to The New York Times, the legal status of other media organizations remains unspecified. This friction is underscored by the October departure of several press outlets from the facility, resulting in the establishment of a department-approved press corps.

利益相關者的立場顯示出制度視角的嚴重分歧。《紐約時報》將此裁決視為對憲法保障的再次肯定，旨在反對企圖阻礙公眾監督軍事行動的措施。相反，國防部透過發言人 Sean Parnell 主張，該裁決移除了防止機密情報被未經授權傳播的必要保障，將損害國家安全。國防部進一步認為，第一修正案並不保證最便捷的進入方式。雖然目前的禁令適用於《紐約時報》，但其他媒體機構的法律地位仍未明確。這種緊張局勢在 10 月多家媒體機構離開該設施後更加顯著，導致隨後成立了一個經部門批准的記者團。

The Department of Defense intends to appeal the ruling while the New York Times maintains its legal challenge to the restrictions.

國防部打算就該裁決提出上訴，而《紐約時報》則維持其對該限制的法律挑戰。