On September 19, 2025, the Pentagon set off a storm across American newsrooms by issuing a sweeping new set of restrictions on journalists covering the United States military. The new policy, detailed in a memo distributed to reporters and news organizations, requires all credentialed journalists to sign a lengthy affidavit—spanning up to seventeen pages—pledging not to report any information that has not been formally authorized for release by a Pentagon official. The rule applies even to unclassified information, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum and ignited a fierce debate over press freedoms and government transparency.
The updated credentialing process, as reported by multiple outlets including The Associated Press and The New York Times, makes it clear: anyone seeking access to the Pentagon must agree that “information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.” Journalists who refuse to sign or who violate the policy risk losing their credentials, effectively shutting them out of the nation’s military nerve center.
The Pentagon has justified the new restrictions as necessary to protect classified national security information as well as so-called “controlled unclassified information.” In the words of Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, the changes are meant to “safeguard sensitive information” and ensure that nothing slips through the cracks—especially after a string of embarrassing leaks earlier in the year. One incident involved the Defense Secretary himself, Pete Hegseth, who inadvertently revealed the timing of U.S. air strikes in Yemen in a group chat that included a reporter. Another saw the premature disclosure of a planned military briefing for billionaire Elon Musk, which never materialized after President Donald Trump intervened.
Yet, critics say the new policy goes far beyond what is needed for security. The restrictions have been widely interpreted as part of President Trump’s broader, second-term push to control media coverage and shape the national narrative. As noted by Bloomberg and The New York Times, the administration has repeatedly clashed with the press, from lawsuits over White House press access to the renaming of federal departments and even the removal of late-night hosts from the airwaves following pressure campaigns.
The memo doesn’t stop at information control. It details sweeping new limitations on where journalists can physically go within the Pentagon’s vast headquarters, located just outside Washington. Reporters are now barred from entering wide swaths of the building unless accompanied by a government escort—a sharp departure from the relatively open access granted by previous administrations.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News personality and Army veteran, didn’t mince words when he addressed the new rules on social media. “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon—the people do,” Hegseth declared on X (formerly Twitter). “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 backlash was swift and fierce. Press freedom advocates, media organizations, and even some conservative politicians condemned the policy as a dangerous attack on the First Amendment. The National Press Club’s president, Mike Balsamo, was blunt in his assessment: “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.”
The New York Times echoed those concerns, stating that the new restrictions “are at stark odds with the constitutional protections of a free press in a democracy.” The Society of Professional Journalists called the policy “alarming,” warning that it “reeks of prior restraint—the most egregious violation of press freedom under the First Amendment—and is a dangerous step toward government censorship.”
Matt Murray, executive editor of The Washington Post, weighed in as well, arguing, “The Constitution protects the right to report on the activities of democratically elected and appointed government officials. Any attempt to control messaging and curb access by the government is counter to the First Amendment and against the public interest.”
Interestingly, criticism of the Pentagon’s move wasn’t limited to left-leaning voices. Republican Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, himself a retired Air Force brigadier general, blasted the policy on X: “This new press policy is so dumb I find it hard to believe. We don’t want a bunch of Pravda newspapers only touting the government’s official position. A free press makes our country better.” The reference to Pravda, the Soviet-era state newspaper, captured the alarm among some conservatives who see the new rules as antithetical to American values.
Despite the outcry, the Pentagon insists that its commitment to transparency remains intact. The memo states that the department “remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust.” Still, the practical effect of the new rules is to bar journalists from reporting material sourced to unnamed officials—a staple of investigative reporting—and to sharply limit their ability to move freely within the Pentagon.
The new restrictions come against a backdrop of escalating tension between the Trump administration and the media. Earlier in 2025, the White House eliminated long-standing press pool access for newswire services after a federal court ordered credentials restored for The Associated Press. That dispute stemmed from the AP’s refusal to use a new name for the Gulf of Mexico, a change not recognized internationally. Meanwhile, the administration’s efforts to rename the Defense Department back to its pre-World War II moniker, the War Department, remain stalled in Congress.
For many journalists, the Pentagon’s latest move is a troubling escalation in a pattern of government hostility toward transparency and democratic norms. As the Society of Professional Journalists put it, “Attempts to silence the press under the guise of ‘security’ are part of a disturbing pattern of growing government hostility toward transparency and democratic norms.”
With the policy now in effect, the future of independent reporting on the U.S. military remains uncertain. Journalists must now weigh the risks of losing access against the imperative to inform the public—an uneasy balancing act in an era of heightened government secrecy and political polarization.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: how Americans learn about the actions of their military—and who gets to decide what they know—has changed, perhaps for good.
