The New York Times has filed a second lawsuit against the Pentagon, arguing that its recent policy requiring journalists to have official escorts when on Pentagon grounds is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration unveiled sweeping restrictions on press access at the US Department of Defense, which it calls the Department of War, last September.

In a suit filed in the US district court in Washington on Monday, the Times argued that an interim policy introduced in the spring had imposed “utterly unreasonable” restrictions on journalists attempting to cover the department.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the New York Times and reporter Julian E Barnes, names the Department of Defense, secretary Pete Hegseth, Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell, and special adviser Timothy Parlatore as defendants.

In the complaint, the Times argues that “to report effectively on the Department, a reporter often must speak with over a dozen officials sitting in Public Affairs offices spread throughout the building”. For decades, it added, the Pentagon’s press access policies “reflected this physical reality” by allowing reporters unescorted access in unsecured corridors, “so that they can move from press office to press office and ask questions on short notice as events unfolded”.

But a policy that the Pentagon adopted in March “breaks sharply from that history and tradition”, the paper argued. “Now, to ask even one question, Barnes and other reporters must call or email for an appointment, wait for a response, get an escort, ask their question, and return to the library outside the Pentagon – only to repeat the process for the next source.

“Reporters must either forgo conversations or else spend hours chasing schedulers by phone and shuttling in and out of the building,” the complaint adds.

In response to the lawsuit, Parnell, the Pentagon spokesperson, released a statement on social media on Monday afternoon, dismissing the Times’s lawsuit as “nothing more than an attempt to remove the barriers to them getting their hands on classified information”.

Parnell said: “They want to roam the halls of the Pentagon freely and without an escort – a privilege that they do not have in any other federal building.”

He maintained that the “department’s policy is completely lawful and narrowly designed to protect national security information from unlawful criminal disclosure”.

The Times said that without “meaningful access to the Pentagon”, Barnes and other journalists and news organizations are “deprived of unique, newsworthy information that can only be obtained in person and through such exchanges”.

It added: “This loss is made more urgent by recent events that have exacerbated the importance of independent reporting, including the capture of the President of Venezuela, the Iran war, and Secretary Hegseth’s firings of multiple high ranking military officials.”

The lawsuit is asking the court to force the Pentagon to lift the restriction.

This is the second time that the Times has sued the defense department over press access. In December, it sued the Pentagon over newly imposed restrictions, which included requiring reporters to sign a form that included strict rules on the “solicitation” of information from defense employees. The new restrictions prompted many leading news organizations to turn in their credentials in protest.

In March, a federal judge ruled that key parts of the new press policy were unconstitutional, and undid much of the policy. But soon after, the Pentagon announced new press rules, including that it would permanently close a designated workspace for journalists, and also issued an “interim” policy requiring journalists to be escorted into the building.

In April, the judge ruled that the interim policy violated his court order, but the Pentagon appealed against the ruling and asked the appeals court to allow the escort requirement to remain in place during the appeal process. The appeals court allowed the escort policy to remain in place while the appeal proceeds.

In its new lawsuit filed on Monday, the Times argued: “The Interim Policy is patently retaliatory, utterly unreasonable, and manifestly arbitrary and capricious.”