The divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the administration was likely to succeed in arguing that the Pentagon’s new credential policy, which requires reporters to be accompanied by escorts inside the building, is legally valid.

The ruling is not a final decision in the lawsuit brought by The New York Times, which challenged the policy as unconstitutional, but it temporarily suspends an April 9 order by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman that had barred the Defense Department from enforcing the escort requirement.

Friedman had ruled that the Pentagon’s revised credential policy violated journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process, saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s team appeared to be attempting to circumvent his earlier March 20 decision ordering the restoration of Pentagon access for reporters.

He said the new rules effectively expelled all journalists from the building unless they were guided by official escorts, undermining the practical ability of the press to report independently.

Circuit Judges Justin Walker, J. Michelle Childs and Bradley Garcia heard the appeal, with Childs dissenting from the 2-1 decision.“Reporters can hardly verify sources, gather information, or speak candidly with Department personnel with an escort looming over their shoulders,” Childs wrote in her dissent.

Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell welcomed the panel’s decision and said the Pentagon looked forward to arguing the full merits of the case before the same court.In a statement posted on social media, Parnell said unrestricted access had contributed to the “regular unauthorized disclosure of sensitive and classified national defense information.”

“Since implementing the current access policy, the Department has seen a meaningful reduction in these unauthorized disclosures, which when they occur can endanger the lives of service members, intelligence personnel, and our allies,” he said.Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing The New York Times, described the appellate ruling as a limited procedural step rather than a judgment on the broader constitutional challenge.

“This is a narrow, preliminary ruling and it casts no doubt on the strength of The Times’s constitutional arguments,” Boutrous said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the full scope of the district court’s rulings in The Times’s favor in this appeal.”The case has become a closely watched test of the balance between national security controls inside the Pentagon and longstanding press access for accredited journalists covering the U.S. military.

President Donald Trump nominated Judge Walker to the appeals court, while President Joe Biden appointed Judges Garcia and Childs. Friedman, the district judge who initially ruled for the newspaper, was appointed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put on hold a preliminary injunction issued a day earlier by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, granting the Justice Department’s request for interim relief while the appeal proceeds. The panel scheduled oral arguments for June 5 to determine whether construction should remain paused during the broader legal review.

The appeals court’s brief order did not address the underlying legal merits of the dispute, which centers on whether the executive branch had the authority to demolish the historic East Wing and proceed with new construction without explicit approval from Congress.

The lawsuit was filed in December by the National Trust for Historic Preservation against the Trump administration and several federal agencies. The group argued that the demolition of the East Wing and the planned ballroom project violated federal preservation laws and exceeded the authority of both the president and the National Park Service.

Judge Leon, in his earlier ruling, sided with the plaintiffs’ argument that the project could not proceed lawfully without congressional authorization, prompting the administration to seek immediate relief from the appeals court to avoid construction delays.

The White House has defended the project as a privately funded initiative backed by donors, describing it as part of a broader effort to modernize the presidential residence while enhancing security infrastructure.

Trump has repeatedly framed the ballroom as a signature addition to the White House complex.Neither the National Trust for Historic Preservation nor the White House responded immediately to requests for comment following the appeals court’s decision issued late Friday.

The case highlights tensions between executive authority and statutory protections governing historic federal properties, with potential implications for how future administrations undertake structural changes to nationally significant sites.