Dozens of reporters turned in access badges and exited the Pentagon on Wednesday rather than agree to government-imposed restrictions on their work, pushing journalists who cover the American military further from the seat of its power. The nation’s leadership called the new rules “common sense” to help regulate a “very disruptive” press.
News outlets were nearly unanimous in rejecting new rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that would leave journalists vulnerable to expulsion if they sought to report on information — classified or otherwise — that had not been approved by Hegseth for release.
Many of the reporters waited to leave together at a 4 p.m. deadline set by the Defense Department to get out of the building. As the hour approached, boxes of documents lined a Pentagon corridor and reporters carried chairs, a copying machine, books and old photos to the parking lot from suddenly abandoned workspaces. Shortly after 4, about 40 to 50 journalists left together after handing in badges.
“It’s sad, but I’m also really proud of the press corps that we stuck together,” said Nancy Youssef, a reporter for The Atlantic who has had a desk at the Pentagon since 2007. She took a map of the Middle East out to her car.
It is unclear what practical impact the new rules will have, though news organizations vowed they’d continue robust coverage of the military no matter the vantage point.
Trump supports the new rules
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump backed his defense secretary’s new rules. “I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace,” Trump said. “The press is very dishonest.”
Even before issuing his new press policy, Hegseth, a former Fox News Channel host, has systematically choked off the flow of information. He’s held only two formal press briefings, banned reporters from accessing many parts of the sprawling Pentagon without an escort and launched investigations into leaks to the media.
He has called his new rules “common sense” and said the requirement that journalists sign a document outlining the rules means they acknowledge the new rules, not necessarily agree to them. Journalists see that as a distinction without a difference.
“What they’re really doing, they want to spoon-feed information to the journalist, and that would be their story. That’s not journalism,” said Jack Keane, a retired U.S. Army general and Fox News analyst, said on Hegseth’s former network.
When he served, Keane said he required new brigadier generals to take a class on the role of the media in a democracy so they wouldn’t be intimidated and also see reporters as a conduit to the American public. “There were times when stories were done that made me flinch a little bit,” he said. “But that’s usually because we had done something that wasn’t as good as we should have done it.”
Youssef said it made no sense to sign on to rules that said reporters should not solicit military officials for information. “To agree to not solicit information is to agree to not be a journalist,” she said. “Our whole goal is soliciting information.”
Reporting on US military affairs will continue — from a greater distance
Several reporters posted on social media when they turned in their press badges.
“It’s such a tiny thing, but I was really proud to see my picture up on the wall of Pentagon correspondents,” wrote Heather Mongilio, a reporter for USNINews, which covers the Navy. “Today, I’ll hand in my badge. The reporting will continue.”
Mongilio, Youssef and others emphasized that they’ll continue to do their jobs no matter where their desks are. Some sources will continue to speak with them, although they say some in the military have been chilled by threats from Pentagon leadership.
In an essay, NPR reporter Tom Bowman noted the many times he’d been tipped off by people he knew from the Pentagon and while embedded in the military about what was happening, even if it contradicted official lines put out by leadership. Many understand the media’s role.
“They knew the American public deserved to know what’s going on,” Bowman wrote. “With no reporters able to ask questions, it seems the Pentagon leadership will continue to rely on slick social media posts, carefully orchestrated short videos and interviews with partisan commentators and podcasters. No one should think that’s good enough.”
The Pentagon Press Association, whose 101 members represent 56 news outlets, has spoken out against the rules. Organizations from across the media spectrum, from legacy organizations like The Associated Press and The New York Times to outlets like Fox and the conservative Newsmax, told their reporters to leave instead of signing the new rules.
Only the conservative One America News Network signed on. Its management likely believes it will have greater access to Trump administration officials by showing its support, Gabrielle Cuccia, a former Pentagon reporter who was fired by OANN earlier this year for writing an online column criticizing Hegseth’s media policies, told the AP in an interview.
The people need free access and transparency to run any public entity. I have pretty much fully supported Sec Hegseth so far, but definitely not for rubber-stamping non-classified or perhaps even “Confidential” info.
Badges should definitely be required, which I assume they already are, but perhaps not in some areas where it may, or may not, be appropriate???
DOD was and is more correct. DOW is the Reps version of silly wokespeak. Changing it back again has more of a feel of a warmongering attitude rather than helping clean up DEI idiocy.
Thank you, Patrick, for making me re-think this issue. I have to say that part of me wants the media (MSM) to pay for all the lies they have told about the Trump admin, but after seeing Omniwar3, I must be willing to recognize that Trump is taking actions that shut down the Free Speech he said he would champion. I am shocked by this–but also by the other side that continues to shout misinformation from the roof tops about many things which Trump–and especially Kennedy–have done right. No, I do not think that censoring our news media is the right thing to do, but I also see they are using “right to free speech” as a shield to shout their own misinformation.
You need to know that I am of the opinion that there is an alien Intervention occurring in our world–has been for over 8 decades, just before my birth. They of course are playing both sides against the middle and their main skill is manipulating humanity–especially our power-hungry leaders–in the mental environment (think “mind control”). I do think Trump wants to serve humanity, but because he is obviously power-hungry, he is obviously susceptible to manipulation. Kennedy is strong enough spiritually and in his core integrity to hold to his commitment to humanity–but it appears Trump may not be. I am still holding out for him–praying for him–but the group mind of this Intervention is very powerful. It is wise that humanity is recognizing this digital attack is a spiritual war. It is essential we “put on the full armor of God.” Your Omniwar presenters–and you–all know the truth of this. But pray for Trump. He may yet come through for us. It is good to know your enemy and their skills. AlliesofHumanity.org
I’m my opinion, I think journalist will now be more prone to mess a story up. Without at least hearing from a source within the Pentagon, now I fear storyline’s will be based on rumors, rather than facts. We have plenty of rumors already and if Pete thinks this will help squash them out, I think they will only get worse. Everyone should be able to talk freely and if someone doesn’t like what one says, you don’t have to listen, but you don’t tell someone else to think like you! It’s called debating to, bring both sides to the table and discuss, then may the best conclusion come to light. There are always 2 sides to every story, and 1 side only, leads us nowhere!
Disregard my other comment (except for the DOD/SOW point).
I now have a much better idea of the issue as I was finally able to read the actual 17 page memo of 18 September: “Implementation of New Media In-Brief”, which I could only find at the NYT (after 2 hours searching), and I had to start a subscription to get it.
Hegseth is essentially:
1 Further restricting areas where the media may go, but I could not find out to what extent comparatively and have no clue if it is significant.
2 Requiring media members to be escorted to non-public areas.
3 Instituting a new, more conspicuous press badge which clearly says “PRESS” in white letters against a bright red background and required to be worn above the waist, which media reports seem to imply is a new requirement.
4 Requiring media members to sign an “acknowledgement” in which they simply “acknowledge” that their badge can be withdrawn if they are determined a security risk “based on the unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure of CNSI or CUI.”
Number 4 is the big offender and most concerning as the media are lawfully allowed to publish classified information that the public has a right to know IAW the SCOTUS ruling on the Pentagon Papers. Of course, it goes without saying that they cannot attempt to personally access that info. So “unauthorized disclosure” is the meat of the issue, which is not that big in itself, but in the context of Sec. Hegseth’s several previous actions regarding the media that make this more concerning.
I have to lean towards more freedom of the press, not less, more especially with an organization like the Pentagon that carved out a $2T slush fund that it has yet to account for, not to mention it’s corrupt history in conducting war and in procuring weapons in peace time.
What is the actual problem that is being solved or remedied? Except for the new badge and, perhaps, requiring escorts in potentially more risky areas, there is no given basis for this. The primary issue are those who unlawfully release classified information to the press, which Sec. Hegseth is already attempting to address to his credit.
Lastly, in the context of Hegseth’s ill-attempt to stifle military members free speech on the Charlie Kirk issue, I am very concerned about this overall. I certainly think the media have overreacted and greatly exaggerated the threat to free speech, but I also think Hegseth’s solution is mostly in search of a problem and, in the final analysis, it is more of a threat than a solution.
The Pentagon could publicly red flag articles that contain lies or inaccurate information, but still allow them to be published, We are sick and tired of the lies but must retain free speech.