On September 24, 2025, the Trump administration took two sweeping actions that have sent shockwaves through the Pentagon, the press corps, and the wider American public. First, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the termination of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), a nearly 75-year-old body established in 1951 to advise on the recruitment, retention, employment, integration, and well-being of women in the military. Second, the Pentagon unveiled new media rules requiring reporters to sign a pledge not to publish even unclassified but sensitive information unless it has been approved by Pentagon officials—an unprecedented move that critics say could undermine press freedom and democratic accountability.
The decision to disband DACOWITS was justified by Pentagon officials as a necessary step to eliminate what they described as a “divisive feminist agenda.” According to Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson, "The committee is focused on advancing a divisive feminist agenda that hurts combat readiness, while Secretary Hegseth has focused on advancing uniform, sex-neutral standards across the department." The committee, composed of civilian women and men appointed by the Defense secretary, had long served as one of the oldest advisory bodies in the Department of Defense, advising on policies that shaped the experience of women in the armed forces.
Joel Valdez, the acting deputy press secretary for the Department of Defense, further defended the move, suggesting that DACOWITS was simply no longer necessary. "The panel, DACOWITS, existed during the last administration's recruitment and retention crisis," Valdez said on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. "With female recruitment numbers soaring under President Trump @SecWar's leadership, it is clear that DACOWITS is not the reason women are joining the military." The Pentagon’s statement was even more blunt: "We are cleansing the Department of wokeness."
The disbandment of DACOWITS is just one part of a larger cultural overhaul of the military under the Trump administration. As reported by UPI, Secretary Hegseth’s changes include new grooming standards requiring all personnel to be clean-shaven and "neat in presentation," a ban on transgender Americans serving in the armed forces, stricter restrictions on media coverage, and the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The administration has also promoted a "warrior ethos" as a counter to what it calls "woke" culture, and controversially, has begun renaming military bases after Confederate soldiers who fought against the United States in the Civil War. Hegseth has even attempted to rename the Department of Defense itself to the Department of War—a move that would require congressional approval.
During his confirmation hearings, Hegseth faced pointed criticism from Democratic senators, both for allegations of sexual misconduct (which he denied) and for his past statements that women should not serve in combat roles. These controversies have only added fuel to the fire as the administration pushes forward with its military reforms.
But it is the new rules for Pentagon press access that have perhaps sparked the most immediate outcry. According to a memo circulated on September 24, reporters seeking to obtain or renew a Pentagon press pass will now be required to sign a commitment to publish only information "approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified." Violators risk losing their access not only to the Pentagon itself but also to all U.S. military facilities worldwide.
Secretary Hegseth, in a statement posted to social media, made the administration’s position clear: "The 'press' does not run the Pentagon — the people do." Meanwhile, Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman, described the new rules as "basic, common-sense guidelines to protect sensitive information." Reporters have already begun receiving notifications that if they refuse to sign the pledge, their passes could be revoked in less than two weeks. This would sharply constrain their ability to interact with both civilian and military officials, not just in Washington but across the globe.
The move has drawn fierce criticism from news organizations, which argue that the policy is unconstitutional and at odds with the norms of a free and open society. The New York Times pointed out that the new rules could have dramatically altered coverage of major events such as the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the lead-up to the Iraq War, and even the Vietnam War. In those cases, independent reporting often contradicted the official government narrative and exposed critical truths to the American public. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that the new policy could reduce journalists to "mere stenographers for the party in power or the Pentagon itself."
Some Republicans have also voiced concern. Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, a former Air Force brigadier general, wrote on social media: "This is so dumb that I have a hard time believing it is true. We don’t want a bunch of Pravda newspapers only touting the Government’s official position." Even former President Trump, when asked about the policy, expressed skepticism: "No, I don’t think so," he said. "Listen, nothing stops reporters. You know that."
The Pentagon’s new approach is part of a broader trend in Washington to clamp down on criticism and control the narrative around national security. While the State Department and the White House have not imposed similar restrictions, the White House did recently ban the Associated Press from certain press pools over a dispute about using the term "Gulf of America" instead of "Gulf of Mexico." The Trump administration’s actions appear aimed at consolidating control over how military and national security issues are discussed in the public sphere, a move that has alarmed many advocates for transparency and accountability.
Historically, the relationship between the Pentagon and the press has always been fraught, with periodic clashes over the publication of sensitive or classified information. The publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 by The New York Times is a famous example, revealing how the Johnson administration had systematically misled the public about the Vietnam War. That landmark case reaffirmed the importance of press freedom, even in the face of government secrecy.
Today, however, the landscape of national security reporting is even more complex. With commercial satellites, international inspectors, and a proliferation of digital tools, journalists have more sources of information than ever before. Yet, as the New York Times notes, even Congress is finding itself increasingly frozen out of information that was once routinely shared. Senators still have not received a full accounting of the evidence used to justify recent military actions, such as the sinking of boats coming out of Venezuela.
As these new rules and cultural changes take effect, the future of military transparency, gender equity, and press freedom in the United States hangs in the balance. The Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the Pentagon and its relationship with both women and the press are likely to remain contentious topics for months, if not years, to come.
