Several major U.S. media organizations have publicly rejected a new Pentagon policy that mandates strict adherence to official information when reporting on military matters. Last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rolled out a controversial policy. This recent move has drawn fierce opposition from virtually all affected newsrooms, but the consequences are stark — media companies need to comply or run the risk of losing their press credentials altogether.
The deadline for media organizations to sign a pledge to report only on the official information was Tuesday at 5 p.m. Otherwise, they would have just 24 hours to submit their press credentials. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, the Atlantic, the Guardian and Breaking Defense have all panned the deal. As expected, most people believe that this ruling poses an immediate and dangerous threat to the independence of journalism.
The New York Times issued a statement condemning the proposed restrictions, asserting that they “constrain how journalists can report on the U.S. military, which is funded by nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars annually.” Similarly, Matt Murray, the executive editor of the Washington Post, criticized the policy for undermining First Amendment rights by imposing unnecessary constraints on information gathering and publication.
“The proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information” – Matt Murray
The Atlantic has been the most vocal opponent of these new rules. They proclaim that these regulations are “*fundamentally*” incompatible with the core foundations of free press. The outlet had a recent showdown with Pentagon and White House officials. That war was the result of a failed 2008 communication on the part of then–Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg. It is hard to overstate how this incident has poisoned the well between military officials and the press.
To defend himself against the sharp criticism over that testimony, Hegseth, perhaps unsurprisingly, turned to Twitter to voice his opinion. In reply to that criticism from the Atlantic, the Post, the Times and many others, he tweeted one emoji, a hand waving goodbye. It was a courageous and very direct manner of articulating his discontent. A few commentators have painted this decision as an effort to disregard new, thoughtful concerns voiced by media professionals.
Sean Parnell, a high-profile ally to the Pentagon, went on to defend the policy. He said it was designed with a focus on ensuring the safety and security of our troops above all else. He stated, “We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country.” At the same time, he admitted that the changes have resulted in pain for reporters.
“caused reporters to have a full-blown meltdown, crying victim online” – Sean Parnell
Combined with the Pentagon’s decision to change its policy on this issue, this is a positive sign that such a policy change may be possible. Part of this plan was dedicating places in the briefing room to podcasters and representatives from non-traditional media outlets. Critics argue that this action will force traditional journalism even further off the field. They think it will create a culture where only approved stories go public.
The Pentagon Press Association has voiced strong opposition to the new guidelines, claiming they are designed to “stifle a free press and potentially expose us to prosecution for simply doing our jobs.” The association says that these moves impair reporters’ ability to do their jobs safely and successfully.
The debate over this policy has reached a fever pitch. In February, that same program’s sudden shake-up made even longtime-credentialed media outlets cede their permanent desks under an “annual media rotation program.” This arbitrary decision has yet again caused many to question the Pentagon’s transparency, accountability, and willingness to engage with the press.
Amid this turmoil, Matt Gaetz, a host of a pro-Trump outlet, expressed support for the new conditions, stating that they are “happy to follow these reasonable conditions.” His comments shed light on a dramatic split in attitudes towards the relationship between media and government agencies.