On October 13, 2025, a coalition of major American news organizations—including The New York Times, The Associated Press, and Newsmax—announced they would not sign a new Defense Department document that outlines sweeping new press rules for journalists covering the Pentagon. Their refusal, echoed by The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Reuters, CNN, NPR, and The Wall Street Journal, sets up a dramatic standoff with the Trump administration, which has threatened to revoke press credentials and evict reporters from Pentagon facilities if they do not comply by October 15.
The controversy centers on a policy unveiled by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that would bar journalists from accessing large portions of the Pentagon without an official escort and grant Hegseth the authority to revoke press access for any reporter who seeks information—classified or otherwise—that has not been explicitly approved for release. According to The New York Times, the new rules would require journalists to acknowledge in writing that they understand and will abide by the policy, or else surrender their badges granting Pentagon access and clear out their workspaces.
Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell defended the new policy, describing it as “common sense media procedures.” In a statement quoted by The Eagle, Parnell insisted, “The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is. This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country.”
Hegseth, for his part, reacted on social media with a hand-waving “goodbye” emoji under statements from the rebelling media organizations. He also reposted a question from a follower who wondered whether reporters believed they deserved unrestricted access to a highly classified military installation under the First Amendment. Hegseth replied simply, “yes.”
Journalists and media advocates have pushed back forcefully against these characterizations. Reporters who cover the Pentagon say they already wear badges, do not enter classified areas, and do not report information that would endanger American lives. David Schulz, director of Yale University’s Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, told The Eagle, “That’s simply not true,” in response to the suggestion that unapproved reporting risks national security. He argued that signing the Pentagon’s statement would wrongly imply that any reporting not pre-cleared by the government is harmful.
The Pentagon Press Association, which represents journalists working at the Pentagon, issued a statement on October 13 criticizing the policy as “vague, likely unconstitutional” and unnecessary. “There is no need or justification, however, for it to require reporters to affirm their understanding of vague, likely unconstitutional policies as a precondition to reporting from Pentagon facilities,” the association said. They further pointed out the significant public interest in Pentagon operations, noting that taxpayers contribute nearly $1 trillion annually to the U.S. military.
Richard Stevenson, Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, underscored this argument, stating, “The public has a right to know how the government and military are operating.”
Other news organizations joined the chorus of criticism. Reuters declared, “We also steadfastly believe in the press protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution, the unrestricted flow of information and journalism that serves the public interest without fear or favor. The Pentagon’s new restrictions erode these fundamental values.” The Washington Post said the rules “undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints” on journalists, while The New York Times accused the Pentagon of threatening to punish reporters for “ordinary news gathering.”
Even Newsmax, a broadcaster generally seen as supportive of President Donald Trump’s administration, described the requirements as “unnecessary and onerous” and expressed hope that the Pentagon would review the matter further.
According to BORNA, the updated Pentagon policy also states that journalists could be deemed “a security or safety risk” if they contact Department of War employees for sensitive information. The policy’s language has alarmed many in the press, who see it as an attempt to criminalize the basic act of asking questions, a cornerstone of investigative journalism. The Pentagon Press Association has accused Secretary Hegseth of systematically limiting access to information about the U.S. military since the Trump administration began. In recent months, Hegseth removed NBC News, The New York Times, and Politico from their Pentagon office spaces—though their journalists retained access to the building—and banned reporters from accessing most Pentagon hallways without an official escort.
The new rules, announced with little warning, set a tight deadline. Reporters received notice that they must sign the policy by October 14, 2025, or surrender their credentials the following day. Most of the protesting outlets have stated that their journalists will continue to cover the U.S. military thoroughly, even if they lose their press credentials. The symbolic weight of these actions, however, is hard to overstate. For decades, the Pentagon press corps has operated under an understanding that, while access is controlled, the flow of information about the nation’s military is a public good—subject, of course, to national security considerations, but not to arbitrary or punitive restrictions.
This latest dispute is not happening in a vacuum. The Trump administration has a history of tense relations with the press, particularly with outlets perceived as critical. As The New York Times and The Eagle report, the administration has applied pressure on news organizations in several ways, including lawsuits against The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and efforts to choke off funding for government-run media services like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. ABC News and CBS News have settled lawsuits related to their coverage, underscoring the legal and political risks faced by journalists in the current climate.
Supporters of the new Pentagon policy argue that it’s a matter of security and order. As Hegseth stated, the rules are about ensuring that “press no longer roams free… wear visible badge… [and] no longer permitted to solicit criminal acts.” The administration maintains that the policy is not about censorship but about protecting sensitive information and maintaining discipline in a highly classified environment.
Critics, however, contend that the rules go far beyond what is necessary for security. They see the policy as part of a broader campaign to intimidate and sideline critical journalism. The fact that both left-leaning and right-leaning outlets have united in opposition is telling. The standoff highlights a deepening rift between the government and the press at a time when public scrutiny of military actions and spending is arguably more important than ever.
As the October 15 deadline looms, the outcome remains uncertain. Will the Pentagon back down in the face of unified media resistance, or will it follow through on its threat to evict some of the nation’s most prominent journalists? One thing is clear: the battle lines over press freedom at the Pentagon have been drawn, and the implications will resonate far beyond the corridors of the Defense Department.
