On Friday, September 19, 2025, the Pentagon—now officially renamed the Department of War—unveiled sweeping new restrictions on journalists covering the U.S. military, triggering a fierce backlash from media organizations, lawmakers, and press freedom advocates. The new policy, detailed in a 17-page memo distributed to credentialed media, requires reporters to sign a pledge agreeing not to publish any information that has not been explicitly approved for release by an authorized official, even if the material is unclassified. Failure to comply means risking the revocation of press credentials and loss of access to the Pentagon building in Arlington, Virginia.
For decades, the Pentagon has served as a hub for military reporting, with journalists enjoying relatively broad access to the building’s corridors and officials. That era appears to be ending. Under the new rules, large swathes of the Pentagon are now off-limits unless journalists are escorted, and reporters are no longer allowed to “roam the halls” freely. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who announced the changes on social media, made the administration’s position clear: “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 Department of War insists it remains “committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust,” but the memo is explicit: “DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorising official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.” The pledge journalists must sign also warns that press credentials “may be based on the unauthorised access, attempted unauthorised access, or unauthorised disclosure” of classified or controlled unclassified information.
Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell defended the policy, telling BBC that the guidelines “reaffirm the standards that are already in line with every other military base in the country.” He described them as “basic, common-sense guidelines to protect sensitive information as well as the protection of national security and the safety of all who work at the Pentagon.”
Yet press organizations and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle quickly denounced the new restrictions. The National Press Club, a leading U.S. journalism organization, described the policy as “a direct assault on independent journalism at the very place where independent scrutiny matters most: the U.S. military.” Its president, Mike Balsamo, who also serves as the national law enforcement editor at the Associated Press, warned, “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.”
Senator Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the move “an ill-advised affront to free speech and freedom of the press.” The Society of Professional Journalists echoed that sentiment, labeling the policy “alarming” and a “dangerous step toward government censorship.” In a statement, the group declared, “This policy reeks of prior restraint — the most egregious violation of press freedom under the First Amendment — and is a dangerous step toward government censorship. 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.”
Matt Murray, executive editor of The Washington Post, weighed in, stating, “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.”
Multiple media organizations, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Reuters, joined in condemnation of the new restrictions. Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, pointed out to Al Jazeera that “decades of US Supreme Court precedent affirmed the right of the media to publish government secrets. That is essentially the job description of an investigative journalist. The law is also clear that the government can’t require people to contract away a constitutional right, like the right to obtain and publish secrets, in exchange for a benefit, like access to government buildings or press credentials.” Stern added, “This policy operates as a prior restraint on publication, which is considered the most serious of First Amendment violations. As we learned in the Pentagon Papers case, the government cannot prohibit journalists from public information merely by claiming it’s a secret or even a national security threat.”
The Pentagon Papers case, formally known as New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), is a touchstone for press freedom advocates. The Supreme Court’s ruling in that case affirmed the right of newspapers to publish classified documents detailing U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, and established a high bar for government-imposed restrictions on the press.
President Trump, for his part, appeared to distance himself from the Pentagon’s approach when questioned by The Hill as he departed the White House for Charlie Kirk’s memorial service. Asked if the Pentagon should be in charge of deciding what journalists can report on, he replied, “No, I don’t think so. Nothing stops reporters. You know that.” Yet the new restrictions are widely seen as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to clamp down on leaks and exert greater control over the flow of information from federal agencies to the public.
Indeed, the administration’s relationship with the press has been marked by escalating tensions and confrontations. Earlier this week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr, suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s long-running talk show after Kimmel made remarks about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Carr told Fox News that the FCC would “continue to hold broadcasters ‘accountable to the public interest’, and that those who did not like that could ‘turn their licence in’.”
President Trump has also pursued a series of high-profile lawsuits against major news outlets, accusing The New York Times of defamation in a $15 billion suit—one of several similar actions targeting CBS News, ABC News, and The Wall Street Journal. On Friday, a judge in Florida dismissed the suit against The New York Times, finding that the complaint relied on “tendentious arguments” and “repetitive” and “laudatory” praise of Trump that was not relevant to the case.
The Pentagon’s new restrictions come after a string of embarrassing leaks and mishandling of sensitive information earlier in 2025. Secretary Hegseth himself was criticized for sharing details about the bombing of Yemen in a group chat that inadvertently included a reporter. Another leak to The New York Times about a planned briefing for Elon Musk on potential military plans against China led to suspensions and an internal investigation.
As the dust settles, the implications of the Pentagon’s new policy remain uncertain. Will reporters find creative ways to continue holding the military accountable? Or will the chilling effect of these restrictions mark a turning point for press freedom in the United States? One thing is clear: the battle over who controls the narrative about America’s armed forces is far from over.
