The relationship between the U.S. government and the press has rarely been harmonious, but recent developments have brought tensions to a fever pitch. In the past few months, the Trump administration has implemented sweeping changes to media access at the Pentagon, launched a public campaign against journalists it deems untrustworthy, and faced a high-profile lawsuit from one of the nation’s leading newspapers. The result is a landscape where the very role of a free press is being hotly contested in the halls of power and the court of public opinion.
On December 4, 2025, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki made headlines herself when she criticized the Pentagon’s newly constituted press corps. In an appearance on “The Late Show,” Psaki told host Stephen Colbert, “I could not get over — they had ‘the press corps,’ I’m going to put them in quotes because it includes Laura Loomer and James O’Keefe and this crew is not a real press corps.” She used air quotes to underscore her skepticism about the legitimacy of the group, which now includes several conservative influencers with little or no experience in defense reporting.
The shakeup began in October, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revised the rules for Pentagon press access. Journalists seeking to obtain or renew credentials were required to sign a contract stating that any information from the Defense Department—classified or not—must be “approved for public release” by an official before it could be reported. According to The New York Times, this policy means reporters can no longer publish even unclassified details about military operations unless the Pentagon gives the green light.
The new policy triggered a mass exodus of traditional media outlets from the Pentagon’s press room. Major organizations, including Fox News and Newsmax—typically viewed as friendly to the administration—refused to sign the agreement. As a result, they lost access to the building, leaving the press corps populated by Trump-aligned figures such as Loomer, O’Keefe, and other right-wing media personalities. Many of these new credential holders had never attended a defense briefing before.
The shift was on full display during a rare Pentagon briefing on December 2, when press secretary Kingsley Wilson fielded questions not from seasoned defense reporters, but from Loomer, O’Keefe, and former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz. Gaetz, who left Congress last year, asked about the U.S. role in Venezuela, while Loomer pressed Wilson on the Trump administration’s decision to help train Qatar’s military pilots. Psaki later remarked, “They had a press briefing with them, where they could ask anything they wanted, and they made no news, no news at all, which is pretty remarkable.” Her comments, reported by multiple outlets, underscored the growing divide between the administration and legacy media.
The White House’s antagonism toward the press has not been limited to the Pentagon. On December 1, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced a new “Media Offenders” website, which lists media outlets and individual reporters accused of publishing false or biased stories. The site features an “Offenders of the Week” section and a “Hall of Shame” that categorizes reports as bias, lie, false claim, malpractice, and more. In a statement, the White House boasted that it had “dropped a flamethrower on the Fake News Media.”
Critics argue that the website amounts to a government-sponsored smear campaign, with potentially dangerous consequences. Katherine Jacobsen of the Committee to Protect Journalists told DW, “When the language that is being used on the website… looks like a smear campaign [and] smells like a smear campaign, it probably is a smear campaign. And I can’t overstate how concerning that is.” She warned that such rhetoric “creates a permission structure not only for potential verbal attacks against the press, but real-world attacks.”
Jonathan Katz, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, echoed these concerns: “It can have a chilling effect on free speech, on independent media. We’re watching carefully to see how this affects press freedom in the United States.” The website’s practice of naming individual reporters has drawn particular ire, with experts warning it could make journalists targets for harassment or worse.
President Trump has not shied away from direct confrontation with the media. In October, defending Hegseth’s new Pentagon rules, he said, “I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace. The press is very dishonest.” This sentiment has been echoed by White House spokespeople, who have accused journalists of spreading “fake news” and mischaracterizing the administration’s actions. Leavitt, in a recent briefing, claimed, “The standard for journalism has dropped to… a historic low in this country.”
Public opinion on the media is starkly divided along partisan lines. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in September 2024 found that 60% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters believed the media was doing a poor job covering the 2024 presidential election, while 77% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters thought the media was performing well. This polarization has only added fuel to the fire of the administration’s campaign against the press.
The legal stakes rose dramatically on December 4, when The New York Times filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Hegseth, arguing that the Pentagon’s media policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments. The suit claims the rules “will deprive the public of vital information about the United States military and its leadership.” The Times’ legal team also contends that the removal of press credentials occurred without due process or accountability, further undermining independent journalism.
The Pentagon’s rationale for the changes is that declining public trust in traditional media justifies a new approach to press access. According to Pentagon officials cited by The Gateway Pundit and others, the new policy is intended to ensure accuracy and prevent the spread of misinformation. Yet, critics argue that forcing journalists to rely solely on official statements erodes transparency and accountability—two pillars of a functioning democracy.
These concerns are not merely theoretical. On December 4, a watchdog report found that Secretary Hegseth had endangered U.S. troops by sharing classified information via his personal cell phone, in violation of department policy. The episode has further fueled debate over the administration’s commitment to transparency and the responsible handling of sensitive information.
Tom Jones, senior writer at the Poynter Institute, observed, “Every president, at times, has had issues with the media and media coverage. But we’ve never seen a president attack the media the way Trump has… Donald Trump, by far, has been the most adversarial president when it comes to the press.”
As the legal battle over press access unfolds and the administration’s rhetoric intensifies, many observers see the current moment as a test of America’s democratic foundations. “One of those pillars that is absolutely essential to democracy and protecting it is free and independent media,” Katz of Brookings told DW. “It’s needed for transparency and accountability. And right now, this pillar is being eroded.”
With the courts now weighing in and both sides digging in their heels, the future of press freedom in the United States hangs in the balance, watched closely by journalists, policymakers, and the public alike.
