On the afternoon of October 15, 2025, a rare and dramatic scene played out in the corridors of the Pentagon. Dozens of seasoned American journalists—representing legacy outlets like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox News, Newsmax, and others—handed in their access badges, packed up personal effects, and filed out of the building together. Their collective departure, prompted by a new set of government-imposed restrictions, marked a turning point in the relationship between the U.S. military and the press corps that covers it.
According to Ukrainska Pravda and the Associated Press, the exodus was triggered by tightened Pentagon access rules that fundamentally altered how journalists could operate. The new regulations, introduced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, prohibit reporters from requesting information not explicitly approved for release by the government—even if that information is unclassified. In effect, the rules ban journalists from soliciting any information from their sources without official sanction, restrict their movement within the Pentagon to a few corridors, and require them to wear conspicuous bright red badges in addition to their regular credentials.
“To agree to not solicit information is to agree to not be a journalist,” said Nancy Youssef of The Atlantic, who has covered the Pentagon since 2007. “Our whole goal is soliciting information.” Her words, echoed by many of her colleagues, capture the sense of professional and constitutional alarm that swept the press corps. Jack Keane, a retired U.S. Army general and Fox News analyst, told Hegseth’s former network, “What they’re really doing, they want to spoon-feed information to the journalist, and that would be their story. That’s not journalism.”
The Pentagon, for its part, described the new rules as “common sense,” with Hegseth’s spokesperson Sean Parnell dismissing the media’s walkout as “self-deportation.” Parnell added, “That’s their right — but also their loss. They will not be missed.” Hegseth himself argued that the requirement for journalists to sign the new rules simply meant they acknowledged them, not necessarily agreed with them—a distinction the press found unconvincing.
The new policy, as reported by the Associated Press, leaves journalists vulnerable to expulsion if they report on any information—classified or not—that hasn’t been cleared by Hegseth for release. The Pentagon Press Association, representing 101 members from 56 news outlets, issued a strong statement opposing the restrictions. Notably, only the conservative One America News Network (OANN) agreed to the new conditions and continued coverage from inside the Pentagon. The Washington Post later reported that a total of fifteen people—including reporters from The Federalist, The Epoch Times, two from OANN, and several foreign journalists—signed the new press policy. No major legacy media outlets agreed.
President Donald Trump, speaking at the White House on October 14, 2025, publicly endorsed the new rules. “I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace,” Trump said of Hegseth. “The press is very dishonest.” The president’s strained relationship with the media is well documented, with recent court battles involving The New York Times, CBS News, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press.
As the 4 p.m. deadline approached on October 15, journalists cleared out their workspaces—some carrying boxes of documents, chairs, a copier, books, and even a map of the Middle East. “It’s sad, but I’m also really proud of the press corps that we stuck together,” Youssef told the Associated Press. Heather Mongilio, a reporter for USNINews, expressed similar sentiments, posting on social media, “It’s such a tiny thing, but I was really proud to see my picture up on the wall of Pentagon correspondents. Today, I’ll hand in my badge. The reporting will continue.”
And continue it has. Within days, reporters were breaking stories about U.S. military operations from outside the Pentagon, relying on cultivated sources and digital communication. On October 17, Reuters reported on a U.S. attack on a boat in the Caribbean suspected of drug trafficking. The story, attributed to an unnamed U.S. official, revealed that two people were taken into U.S. custody after the attack—details later confirmed by President Trump. The New York Times covered the abrupt retirement of U.S. Navy Admiral Alvin Holsey, leader of the U.S. Southern Command, who stepped down just one year into his expected three-year command. Times reporters Eric Schmitt and Tyler Pager cited two unnamed officials who said Holsey had concerns about the mission and the attacks on boats.
Despite the press corps’ determination, the new environment brings uncertainty. Reporters worry about diminished face-to-face contact with Pentagon officials and the chilling effect on sources who may fear retribution. “Some people are going to be scared,” one journalist admitted. “I think that’s inevitable.” Youssef noted that she had asked the Pentagon for information about the legal basis for recent military actions and the identities of those killed, but received no answer.
The question of whether journalists who declined to sign the Pentagon’s rules will be allowed to visit other military sites or embed with units remains unresolved. “If you’re in the Navy in charge of the carrier strike group, would you invite a journalist now?” Youssef wondered. “Practically speaking, are we allowed to go?”
Yet, amid the tightening restrictions, glimmers of hope persist. Youssef reported that mid-level service members have reached out to her, unsolicited, promising to keep providing information to uphold constitutional values, not to defy leadership. Tom Bowman of NPR reflected on the importance of such sources, writing, “They knew the American public deserved to know what’s going on. 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.”
For now, the nation’s defense reporters are adapting—working from newsrooms across Washington, relying on digital tools and relationships built over years, and vowing to continue their mission. The Pentagon’s new press regime may have changed the geography of reporting, but it has not extinguished the resolve of journalists to inform the public about the military’s actions, decisions, and consequences. Whether this standoff is a temporary chapter or a lasting transformation remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the story, and the scrutiny, will go on.
