The Pentagon’s sweeping new rules for journalists — including the demand that reporters sign a pledge to not release any “unauthorized” information or risk losing access to the Pentagon grounds — would deeply erode news coverage of the nation’s military.

The policy is just the latest in a series of game-changing moves at the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — most of them designed, he says, to restore what the veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan often refers to as the “warrior ethos.”

For Mr. Hegseth, that has meant eliminating leftist social policies, ending “woke” initiatives and disavowing the political correctness that critics say eroded the effectiveness of the military.

But analysts and media law scholars say the new effort to control the press is a clear violation of the First Amendment and may not survive legal scrutiny.

The changes outlined last week appear to be an attempt to fundamentally reshape how journalists interact with the Defense Department, their access to the halls of the Pentagon itself, and the kinds of stories they write about the largest federal department, the world’s most powerful armed forces and the single largest employer of any kind in the U.S.

So far, there have been no legal challenges against the policy. But several leading news outlets have strongly suggested such actions are forthcoming. It’s not clear how strictly the Pentagon will follow the proposed rules and if it will actually cancel press access for anyone who does not agree to follow the new policy.

SEE ALSO: Hegseth abruptly summons top military commanders to a meeting in Virginia next week

Some former officials who worked in public affairs inside the military said the new approach is a mistake and a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship that should exist between the Pentagon, the media and the public.

“What do they want to accomplish? No reporter is going to sign on to this,” said retired Rear Adm. Tom Jurkowsky, who served 31 years in the Navy, including a stint as the service’s chief of information and leader of its public affairs program.

In an interview, Mr. Jurkowsky said that independent reporting, despite the natural tension that exists between reporters and public officials, plays an irreplaceable role in informing the public.

“The public are the shareholders. We owe them a report,” he said.

The 17-page Pentagon proposal builds on previous media restrictions rolled out earlier this year. Specifically, it codifies significant physical limits on where reporters can go inside the Pentagon and links the following of those limits to a reporter’s credentials, or “hard pass,” the ID badge that most full-time journalists covering the military have.

The most critical — and, scholars say, most legally dubious — portion centers on reporters being asked to sign a document promising they won’t release any information not authorized for release, even if that information is unclassified, meaning that essentially all news coverage would have to be approved by the government.

The proposals, freedom-of-speech advocates say, are deeply troubling but also not surprising, given the trajectory of the Pentagon’s attitude toward the journalists who cover it.

“The administration has already cracked down on Pentagon reporters in any number of ways, whether it’s office space in the buildings, access to physical locations, access to individuals. A lot of that is already gone, and it’s interesting that after those crackdowns on press access, the administration still thinks access to its press briefings is such a significant incentive that news outlets might sign away their constitutional rights in exchange for it,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

“The First Amendment exists to protect the press’s right to publish things that the government does not want to be published,” Mr. Stern said in an interview.

Shortly after the new rules were publicly released last Friday, the Pentagon Press Association, the body that represents the Pentagon press corps, issued a brief statement.

“The Pentagon Press Association is aware of today’s new directive regarding badge access to the Pentagon and is reviewing it,” the association said.

For decades, major stories involving the U.S. military, dating back to the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal of 2004, among many others, have been broken because of journalists working to obtain, verify and subsequently publish or broadcast sensitive information. Such work has been at the heart of how journalists cover the military, and the federal government as a whole.

Restricting access

The Pentagon is framing the new directive as an attempt to crack down on the leaking of information to reporters and the national security concerns around the release of unauthorized information. Officials also objected to the decades-old tradition of journalists having access to much of the Pentagon building itself.

“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,” Mr. Hegseth wrote in a Sept. 19 post on X.

The Pentagon memo details the requirements for journalists and the rationale behind them. In it, the Defense Department — which President Trump has given the secondary title “War Department,” or Department of War — says it is still committed to transparency.

“DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust. However, DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,” the memo says.

“The Department of War must safeguard classified national security information (CNSI), in accordance with Executive Order 13526 and the Atomic Energy Act, and information designated as controlled unclassified information (CUI), in accordance with Executive Order 13556,” the memo continues. “Only authorized persons who have received favorable determinations of eligibility for access, signed approved non-disclosure agreements, and have a need-to-know may be granted access to CNSI. DoW may only provide CUI to individuals when there is a lawful governmental purpose for doing so. Unauthorized disclosure of CNSI or CUI poses a security risk that could damage the national security of the United States and place DoW personnel in jeopardy.”

But even Mr. Trump seemed to distance himself from the policy and appeared to suggest he doesn’t believe it will work.

“Nothing stops reporters,” Mr. Trump said recently.

The document also explains in detail the protocol surrounding journalists’ access to areas of the Pentagon grounds, when escorts will be needed for reporters moving around the sprawling complex, the process for removing equipment from the site, and other policies.

The restrictions on physical space include areas around the offices of Mr. Hegseth, his top aides, key generals, and other officials. Those restrictions were first unveiled in May and sparked an uproar among reporters who said it will limit their ability to gather information from sources. While that policy had already been in place for months, the new memo would tie the restrictions to a reporter’s hard pass, meaning that pass would seemingly be revoked if a reporter is seen in one of those areas without an escort or prior permission.

The Pentagon also has instituted significant changes to the workspaces that many outlets have traditionally had inside the building. The Washington Times maintains a desk in the designated press area dubbed “Correspondents’ Corridor,” reserved for media outlets who have reporters on site covering the Pentagon.

Christopher Dolan, president and executive editor of The Washington Times, said the publication will not sign the new policy. 

Legal questions

Free-speech advocates and media groups say the policy is an attack on the First Amendment rights of the media to report on the government.

“This is a direct assault on independent journalism at the very place where independent scrutiny matters most: the U.S. military,” Mike Balsamo, president of the National Press Club, said in a statement. “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.”

Mr. Stern, the Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy director, said there are fundamental reasons why the directive should be struck down by a court.

“It should be for any number of reasons. It operates as a prior restraint — it is a prohibition before the fact of publication of certain records of public concern, anything that hasn’t been authorized to be published,” he said. “Whereas in the Pentagon Papers case, there was one set of documents that the government sought to enjoin newspapers from publishing, and the Supreme Court said no, prior restraints are an extreme remedy and you can’t make the First Amendment disappear simply by saying the words ’national security.’”

“Here, we don’t even have a particular document or national security claim,” Mr. Stern said.

Journalists, Mr. Stern said, are legally protected and able to publish information that they lawfully obtain, even if such information was “leaked” to them, or given to them on background without named attribution, or through other means outside of formal, government-approved channels.

• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.