The New York Times and reporter Julian E. Barnes have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the Pentagon's mandatory escort policy for journalists.

《紐約時報》與記者 Julian E. Barnes 已在哥倫比亞特區美國地方法院提起訴訟，挑戰五角大廈對記者實施的強制陪同政策是否違憲。

The current litigation constitutes the second legal challenge initiated by the New York Times against the Department of Defense within a five-month period. The primary point of contention is an interim policy implemented in March, which mandates that media personnel be accompanied by official escorts at all times while on Pentagon grounds. The plaintiffs contend that this requirement represents a significant departure from historical precedents that permitted unescorted movement within unsecured corridors to facilitate efficient reporting. They argue that the current procedural requirements—necessitating appointments and repeated escort transitions—effectively preclude the acquisition of time-sensitive information and independent reporting on critical military affairs, including the dismissal of high-ranking officials and international conflicts.

本次訴訟是《紐約時報》在五個月內對國防部發起的第二次法律挑戰。爭論的核心在於三月份實施的一項臨時政策，該政策要求媒體人員在五角大廈範圍內必須全程由官方人員陪同。原告方主張，這項要求大幅背離了以往允許在非安全走廊自由行動以利於高效報導的慣例。他們認為，目前的程序要求——包括必須預約以及頻繁的陪同人員交接——實際上阻礙了對時效性資訊的獲取，以及對關鍵軍事事務（包括高官被撤職和國際衝突）的獨立報導。

This legal trajectory follows a December lawsuit concerning restrictions on the solicitation of information from defense employees, which led several news organizations to relinquish their credentials. Although a federal judge previously determined that certain elements of the Department's press policy were unconstitutional and ruled in April that the interim escort policy violated a prior court order, an appeals court has stayed that ruling. Consequently, the escort requirement remains operational pending the outcome of the appeal.

此次法律行動繼自十二月一起關於限制向國防僱員索取資訊的訴訟之後，該訴訟導致多家新聞機構放棄了記者證。儘管聯邦法官先前認定國防部新聞政策的某些要素違憲，並在四月份裁定臨時陪同政策違反了先前的法院命令，但上訴法院已暫緩執行該裁定。因此，在上訴結果出爐前，陪同要求依然有效。

Stakeholder positions remain polarized. The New York Times asserts that the policy is a retaliatory measure designed to restrict visibility into government operations and ensure that reporting is limited to approved narratives. Conversely, Department of Defense spokesperson Sean Parnell has characterized the lawsuit as an attempt to obtain unauthorized access to classified information. The Department maintains that press access is a government-extended privilege and that the current protocols are lawful measures intended to prevent the criminal disclosure of national security data.

利益相關者的立場依然兩極分化。《紐約時報》聲稱該政策是一項報復性措施，旨在限制對政府運作的透明度，並確保報導僅限於經過批准的敘事。相反，國防部發言人 Sean Parnell 將此次訴訟定性為企圖獲取未經授權的機密資訊。國防部堅持認為，新聞准入是政府授予的特權，而目前的協議是旨在防止刑事洩露國家安全數據的合法措施。

The judiciary is now tasked with determining whether the Department of Defense's escort requirements violate the First Amendment or serve as a legitimate security necessity.

司法部門目前的任務是判定國防部的陪同要求是否違反了第一修正案，或者是否屬於正當的安全必要措施。