On the eve of a sweeping policy deadline, a broad coalition of major news organizations—spanning the ideological spectrum and including such names as The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian U.S., CNN, Newsmax, and The Washington Times—have publicly rejected the Pentagon’s latest press restrictions. This dramatic standoff, which unfolded on October 13, 2025, has set the stage for a fierce debate over press freedom, the First Amendment, and the boundaries of government transparency in the United States.
The Pentagon’s new policy, which was introduced in late September and revised after two weeks of negotiations, would require journalists covering the Department of Defense to sign an agreement acknowledging strict limits on their interactions with military personnel. Among the most contentious provisions: reporters must obtain prior approval for interviews and on-the-record conversations, sign non-disclosure agreements forbidding the publication of any information not explicitly authorized by the Department—even if that information is unclassified—and risk losing their access to the Pentagon entirely if they step outside these bounds. The deadline for signing on was set for October 14, 2025, at 5 p.m., with access to the building to be revoked within 24 hours for noncompliance.
“The proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information,” said Matt Murray, executive editor of The Washington Post, in a statement on Monday. “We will continue to vigorously and fairly report on the policies and positions of the Pentagon and officials across the government.” According to The Washington Post, Murray’s remarks reflect a broader consensus among news organizations that the new rules would make it nearly impossible to fulfill their watchdog role.
Richard Stevenson, Washington Bureau Chief for The New York Times, echoed these concerns in a social media statement posted Sunday, warning that the revised policy “threatens to punish journalists for ordinary news gathering protected by the First Amendment.” Stevenson added, “Since the policy was first announced, we have expressed concerns that it constrains how journalists can report on the U.S. military. The public has a right to know how the government and military are operating. The Times is dedicated to pursuing the public interest through deep, fair reporting and an unwavering pursuit of the facts.”
Even Newsmax, a network often associated with pro-Trump views, joined the chorus of dissent. “Newsmax has no plans to sign the letter. We are working in conjunction with other media outlets to resolve the situation. We believe the requirements are unnecessary and onerous and hope that the Pentagon will review the matter further,” the outlet told media reporter Erik Wemple, as reported by Mediaite. Newsmax’s refusal, alongside legacy outlets, signals just how broad the opposition has become.
On the other hand, One America News (OAN)—a far-right television network—was the lone major outlet to agree to the new restrictions. OAN president Charles Herring said in a statement, “After thorough review of the revised press policy by our attorney, OAN staff has signed the document.” Former U.S. congressman and OAN anchor Matt Gaetz described the policy as “grounded in care for our national security.”
The Pentagon, for its part, has shown little sign of backing down. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who has been embroiled in several controversies since taking office, responded to the media’s collective refusal with a dismissive hand-waving emoji on X (formerly Twitter). In a separate post, Hegseth wrote, “Pentagon access is a privilege, not a right. So, here is @DeptofWar press credentialing FOR DUMMIES: Press no longer roams free. Press must wear visible badge. Credentialed press no longer permitted to solicit criminal acts. DONE.” His rhetoric underscores a view that the Pentagon’s increased restrictions are necessary reforms for a department engaged in sensitive work.
Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell accused the news outlets of “moving the goal post” after initially expressing gratitude for the revised policies. “This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online,” Parnell said. “We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country.”
Yet, the backlash from journalism groups has been swift and forceful. The Pentagon Press Association, whose members include Reuters, the Associated Press, and ABC News, issued a statement Monday condemning the policy: “The policy conveys an unprecedented message of intimidation to everyone within the DoD, warning against any unapproved interactions with the press and even suggesting it’s criminal to speak without express permission—which plainly, it is not.”
Other organizations, such as the White House Correspondents’ Association and the State Department Correspondents’ Association, released a joint statement in support of the Pentagon Press Association, emphasizing, “The public has a right to know how the government is conducting the people’s business. Unfettered reporting on the U.S. military and its civilian leadership provides a service to those in uniform, veterans, their families and all Americans.”
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was unequivocal in his opposition. “The requirements violate our First Amendment rights, and the rights of Americans who seek to know how taxpayer-funded military resources and personnel are being deployed. We will continue to cover matters of defense, war, and national security independently and fairly.”
These developments are the latest in a series of moves by Secretary Hegseth to limit press access since taking office in February 2025. According to Politico, Hegseth immediately removed workspace from legacy media outlets, including The New York Times, NBC News, Politico itself, and NPR, reallocating space to outlets more favorable to the Trump administration. By May, reporters could no longer access areas near the secretary’s office without an escort. Hegseth justified these changes as necessary for operational security, stating, “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.”
The White House, meanwhile, has tried to exert greater control over the press pool, determining which outlets participate in daily coverage. President Trump, when asked last month about the restrictions, sounded a more conciliatory note, remarking, “Nothing stops reporters.”
For decades, Pentagon reporters enjoyed access to the building’s corridors, much like their counterparts at the White House and on Capitol Hill. The new rules, with their demand for signed non-disclosure agreements and prior approval for basic reporting activities, mark a stark departure from that tradition. Critics argue these changes undermine the very foundation of a free press, especially when reporting on an institution funded by nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars annually.
As the Tuesday deadline looms, the standoff between the Pentagon and the press shows no sign of abating. The outcome will likely shape not only the future of military reporting, but also set a precedent for how government agencies interact with the media in a climate of increasing suspicion and polarization. For now, newsrooms across America are standing firm, determined to defend their constitutional role—even if it means losing their coveted Pentagon access.
