The Pentagon’s sweeping new rules for journalists, including the demand that reporters sign a pledge not to release any “unauthorized” information or risk losing access to the Pentagon grounds, would deeply erode news coverage of the nation’s military.
The policy is the latest in a series of game-changing moves at the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He said most of the changes are designed to restore what he often calls the “warrior ethos.”
For Mr. Hegseth, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that means eliminating leftist social policies, ending woke initiatives and disavowing the political correctness that critics say has eroded the effectiveness of the military.
Analysts and media law scholars say the effort to control the press is a clear violation of the First Amendment and may not survive legal scrutiny.
The changes outlined last week appear to be an attempt to fundamentally reshape how journalists interact with the Defense Department, their access to the halls of the Pentagon, and the kinds of stories they write about the largest federal department, the world’s most powerful armed forces and the single largest employer of any kind in the U.S.
The policy has not been legally challenged, but several leading news outlets have strongly suggested that such actions are forthcoming. It’s unclear how strictly the Pentagon will follow the proposed rules or whether it will cancel press access for anyone who does not agree to the new policy.
SEE ALSO: Hegseth abruptly summons top military commanders to a meeting in Virginia next week
Some former public affairs officials inside the military said the approach is a mistake and a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship that should exist among the Pentagon, the media and the public.
“What do they want to accomplish? No reporter is going to sign on to this,” said retired Rear Adm. Tom Jurkowsky, who served 31 years in the Navy, including a stint as the service’s chief of information and leader of its public affairs program.
In an interview, Adm. Jurkowsky said independent reporting is irreplaceable in informing the public despite the natural tension between reporters and public officials.
“The public are the shareholders. We owe them a report,” he said.
The 17-page Pentagon proposal builds on media restrictions rolled out earlier this year. Specifically, it codifies significant physical limits on reporters’ movements inside the Pentagon. It links the following of those limits to a reporter’s credentials, or “hard pass,” the ID badge for most full-time journalists covering the military.
The most critical — and, scholars say, most legally dubious — portion centers on reporters being asked to sign a document promising they won’t release any information not authorized for release, even if that information is unclassified. That essentially means the government would have to approve all news coverage.
Freedom of speech advocates say the proposals are deeply troubling but not surprising, given the trajectory of the Pentagon’s attitude toward the journalists who cover it.
“The administration has already cracked down on Pentagon reporters in any number of ways, whether it’s office space in the buildings, access to physical locations, access to individuals. A lot of that is already gone, and it’s interesting that after those crackdowns on press access, the administration still thinks access to its press briefings is such a significant incentive that news outlets might sign away their constitutional rights in exchange for it,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
“The First Amendment exists to protect the press’ right to publish things that the government does not want to be published,” Mr. Stern said in an interview.
Shortly after the rules were publicly released Sept. 19, the Pentagon Press Association, which represents the Pentagon press corps, issued a brief statement.
“The Pentagon Press Association is aware of today’s new directive regarding badge access to the Pentagon and is reviewing it,” the association said.
For decades, major stories involving the U.S. military have been broken because of journalists working to obtain, verify and subsequently publish or broadcast sensitive information. Work on stories such as the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal of 2004 has been at the heart of how journalists cover the military and the federal government as a whole.
Restricting access
The Pentagon is framing the directive as an attempt to crack down on information leaks to reporters and national security concerns around releasing unauthorized information. Officials also objected to the decades-old tradition of giving journalists access to much of the Pentagon building.
“The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules — or go home,” Mr. Hegseth wrote in a Sept. 19 post on X.
The Pentagon memo details the requirements for journalists and the rationale behind them. It says the Defense Department, which President Trump has given the secondary title “War Department,” or Department of War, is still committed to transparency.
“DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust. However, DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,” the memo says.
“The Department of War must safeguard classified national security information (CNSI), in accordance with Executive Order 13526 and the Atomic Energy Act, and information designated as controlled unclassified information (CUI), in accordance with Executive Order 13556,” the memo says. “Only authorized persons who have received favorable determinations of eligibility for access, signed approved non-disclosure agreements, and have a need-to-know may be granted access to CNSI. DoW may only provide CUI to individuals when there is a lawful governmental purpose for doing so. Unauthorized disclosure of CNSI or CUI poses a security risk that could damage the national security of the United States and place DoW personnel in jeopardy.”
Even Mr. Trump seemed to distance himself from the policy and appeared to suggest he didn’t believe it would work.
“Nothing stops reporters,” Mr. Trump said recently.
The document explains in detail the protocol surrounding journalists’ access to areas of the Pentagon grounds, when reporters will need escorts to move around the sprawling complex, the process for removing equipment from the site, and other policies.
The physical space restrictions include areas around Mr. Hegseth’s offices, his top aides, key generals and other officials. Those restrictions, unveiled in May, sparked an uproar among reporters who said the policy would limit their ability to gather information from sources. Although that policy has been in place for months, the new memo would tie the restrictions to a reporter’s hard pass, meaning that pass would seemingly be revoked if a reporter is seen in one of those areas without an escort or prior permission.
The Pentagon has instituted significant changes to traditional workspaces for many outlets inside the building. The Washington Times maintains a desk in the designated press area dubbed “Correspondents’ Corridor,” reserved for media outlets that have reporters on site covering the Pentagon.
Christopher Dolan, president and executive editor of The Washington Times, said the publication will not sign the new policy.
Legal questions
Free speech advocates and media groups say the policy attacks the press’ First Amendment right to report on the government.
“This is a direct assault on independent journalism at the very place where independent scrutiny matters most: the U.S. military,” Mike Balsamo, president of the National Press Club, said in a statement. “If the news about our military must first be approved by the government, then the public is no longer getting independent reporting. It is getting only what officials want them to see. That should alarm every American.”
Mr. Stern, the Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy director, said a court would have fundamental reasons to strike down the directive.
“It should be for any number of reasons. It operates as a prior restraint — it is a prohibition before the fact of publication of certain records of public concern, anything that hasn’t been authorized to be published,” he said. “Whereas in the Pentagon Papers case, there was one set of documents that the government sought to enjoin newspapers from publishing, and the Supreme Court said no, prior restraints are an extreme remedy and you can’t make the First Amendment disappear simply by saying the words ‘national security.’
“Here, we don’t even have a particular document or national security claim,” Mr. Stern said.
Mr. Stern said journalists are legally protected and able to publish information they lawfully obtain, even if such information was “leaked” to them, given to them on background without named attribution, or through other means outside formal, government-approved channels.
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.