When the Pentagon released a sweeping new policy on September 19, 2025, requiring journalists to sign a contract acknowledging that even unclassified information must be approved for public release before reporting, it set off a firestorm across the American media landscape. Reporters, legal experts, and press freedom advocates swiftly condemned the move, calling it a dangerous precedent for government control over independent journalism and a direct threat to the First Amendment.
The 17-page memo, signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, outlined that any reporter seeking to obtain or renew a Pentagon press pass must agree to these new terms. The consequences for noncompliance are stark: reporters who refuse to sign or are found in violation could see their access to the Pentagon and all U.S. military facilities revoked, potentially within just two weeks. For many in the press corps, the message was clear—comply, or lose your ability to report from inside the beating heart of American defense policy.
According to The Hill, the nonprofit Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press quickly stepped in, requesting a delay in implementing the new rules and demanding clarification about their scope. The committee’s vice president of policy, Gabe Rottman, was unequivocal in his assessment: “The Pentagon’s policy, in its current form, could be wielded to silence independent reporting in the public interest about the Pentagon and our national defense.” The group announced on September 24 that Pentagon officials had agreed to meet to discuss these First Amendment concerns.
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) joined the chorus of criticism, calling on the Defense Department to “rescind these measures immediately” and urging all journalists and press freedom advocates “to join us in unified opposition and resist this latest attempt to muzzle the press and deny the American people the transparency and accountability they deserve.”
But the Pentagon is pushing back against claims of censorship. Spokesperson Sean Parnell took to social media on September 24 to insist, “It should come as no surprise that the mainstream media is once again misrepresenting the Pentagon’s press procedures. Let’s be absolutely clear: journalists are not required to clear their stories with us. This claim is a lie.” Parnell elaborated that journalists must simply have an escort in sensitive areas, wear a press credential, and not encourage Pentagon employees to violate Department of War policy. “Pretty simple,” he wrote.
In a formal response to the Reporters Committee, Parnell clarified that the rules about information release were intended for Pentagon employees, not for reporters themselves. However, he warned that press access could be affected if journalists are involved in violations related to classified national security information (CNSI) or controlled unclassified information (CUI). “Receipt of unsolicited information and subsequent publication—even of CNSI or CUI—is generally constitutionally protected and would not normally, on its own, trigger revocation. However, in rare, extreme cases where publication recklessly endangers American lives, it could factor into an assessment of whether continued unescorted access to the Pentagon poses a security risk,” Parnell wrote. He added that if a reporter actively solicits such information or encourages its release, that could also be grounds for losing access, referencing First Amendment precedent that does not protect conduct facilitating legal violations.
The SPJ, however, was not convinced. “The language within its own memo is clear, stating that all information ‘must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.’ That is not normal press procedure—it is prior restraint,” the organization stated on September 25. “Journalists are not employees of the Department of War. They should never be asked to abide by restrictions intended for government staff. Suggesting otherwise is a dangerous blurring of roles that undermines critical independent reporting.”
Historically, the tension between the government and the press over the publication of sensitive information is nothing new. The most famous example remains the 1971 publication of the Pentagon Papers, when The New York Times and The Washington Post released classified documents revealing that the Johnson administration had misled the public about the Vietnam War. That episode triggered a landmark Supreme Court decision upholding the First Amendment and the press’s right to publish information in the public interest. Yet, as George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley warned on Fox News’s “Special Report,” the current Pentagon policy “may be a ‘bridge too far’ as there is no precedent for such rules on reporters. What they’re basically saying is if you publish anything that’s not in the press release, is not the official statement of the Pentagon, you could be held responsible under this policy. That is going to create a stranglehold on the free press. And the cost is too great.”
The new rules also further restrict reporters’ physical movement inside the Pentagon. Journalists now require escorts to access certain hallways and offices, a significant change from past practice where they could move freely. The press briefing room, once a haven for filing stories and connecting to the internet, is now off-limits except during official briefings. Since the start of 2025, Hegseth has removed several news outlets from Pentagon workspaces, replacing them with organizations such as Breitbart News and One America News Network, which have been more favorable toward the Trump administration. Complaints about workspace removals have only led to further ejections, including The Hill itself.
Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has not been shy about his motivations. He has repeatedly accused journalists of trying to “sabotage” President Trump’s agenda and declared on social media, “the ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon—the people do.”
The controversy has spilled beyond the walls of the Pentagon. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose show was briefly pulled off air after comments about the suspected shooter of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, used his return to highlight the issue. “They want to pick and choose what the news is. I know that’s not as interesting as muzzling a comedian, but it’s so important to have a free press and it is nuts that we aren’t paying more attention to it,” Kimmel said in his September 23 monologue.
The uproar has even reached the pages of The Los Angeles Times. In a letter to the editor published September 28, Judy Pang of Palos Verdes Estates urged credentialed Pentagon journalists and their leaders to unite and push back against the new restrictions. Drawing a parallel to the solidarity shown by comedians like Kimmel, she argued that if all journalists from reputable outlets refused to attend Pentagon press events, presidential interviews, or Cabinet meetings until full independence was restored, press freedom could be won back swiftly. “How long would it take for that to happen? I’d guess less time than it took for Jimmy Kimmel to be back on the air,” Pang wrote.
As the debate rages, President Trump himself weighed in on September 28, distancing himself from the Pentagon’s approach. When asked if the Pentagon should decide what the media can cover, he replied, “No, I don’t think so. Nothing stops reporters.”
For now, the future of press access at the Pentagon remains uncertain. What is certain, though, is that the battle lines have been drawn—between a government seeking to control its message and a press determined to maintain its independence. The outcome will shape not only the relationship between the military and the media but also the public’s right to know what happens behind the Pentagon’s closed doors.
