Pentagon Demands Journalists Sign Pledge

[Glocker_Alum_2005]

The Pentagon on Friday announced sweeping new restrictions on journalists covering the Defense Department, requiring reporters to pledge they will not obtain or publish any information — even if unclassified — unless it has been expressly authorized by the government. BTW, released on Friday evening (classic Friday news dump tactic).

Pentagon demands journalists sign pledge restricting information gathering

The Trump administration said it will revoke the press credentials of journalists who do not comply with the new pledge requirements.

www.weareiowa.com

 

[lawgator1]

The Pentagon on Friday announced sweeping new restrictions on journalists covering the Defense Department, requiring reporters to pledge they will not obtain or publish any information — even if unclassified — unless it has been expressly authorized by the government. BTW, released on Friday evening (classic Friday news dump tactic).

Pentagon demands journalists sign pledge restricting information gathering

The Trump administration said it will revoke the press credentials of journalists who do not comply with the new pledge requirements.

www.weareiowa.com

And..... we violate that Constitution some more. I mean, why bother having one at this point.

 

[rjd970]

Is anybody good with this?

 

[EasternVol]

Is anybody good with this?

The usual suspects will support it.

 

[HeuperDrive]

Is anybody good with this?

lol, 75% of this forum is just going to say this is either fake news, or fully justified because of “communism” or whatever

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Is anybody good with this?

Yes. People either already identified as idiots or loyalists expressing silly rationale for it

 

[volfanhill]

New York Times Rebukes Pentagon's Reporter Restrictions: 'At Stark Odds With the Constitutional Protections' | Video

The New York Times will not abide by new restrictions on reporters set by the Pentagon, which require pre-approval before reporting can be published, the paper announced Saturday morning. A spokesperson for the Times insisted such restrictions are "at stock odds with the constitutional...

www.thewrap.com

 

[Ritzwatch]

I am not a fan of abridging the press’ right to report, but this seems different to me.

It is not completely clear to me from the reporting, but the new regs seem to apply to reporters with “access” to the Pentagon. In other words, if the press reports on goings-on from knowledge acquired from specially granted access to the Pentagon wi the out approval, the Pentagon may revoke that specially granted access.

That doesn’t seem to be out of line with any number of other situations reporters may face, such as “on-background” or “off-the-record” conversations. If the press violates those, their sources will dry up, too. This seems to be putting reporters on notice as to info acquired under special access only, not a more general across-the-board prohibition.

 

[KB5252]

If you don't want information out just make it classified and prosecute those who share it. No "pledge" is required...... Plus how is a "pledge" enforced?

 

[MontyPython]

New York Times Rebukes Pentagon's Reporter Restrictions: 'At Stark Odds With the Constitutional Protections' | Video

The New York Times will not abide by new restrictions on reporters set by the Pentagon, which require pre-approval before reporting can be published, the paper announced Saturday morning. A spokesperson for the Times insisted such restrictions are "at stock odds with the constitutional...

www.thewrap.com

Sue Trump for $15.1 Billion.

 

[MontyPython]

I am not a fan of abridging the press’ right to report, but this seems different to me.

It is not completely clear to me from the reporting, but the new regs seem to apply to reporters with “access” to the Pentagon. In other words, if the press reports on goings-on from knowledge acquired from specially granted access to the Pentagon wi the out approval, the Pentagon may revoke that specially granted access.

That doesn’t seem to be out of line with any number of other situations reporters may face, such as “on-background” or “off-the-record” conversations. If the press violates those, their sources will dry up, too. This seems to be putting reporters on notice as to info acquired under special access only, not a more general across-the-board prohibition.

Journalists who cover the Defense Department at the Pentagon can no longer gather or report information, even if it is unclassified, unless it’s been authorized for release by the government, defense officials announced Friday. Reporters who don’t sign a statement agreeing to the new rules will have their press credentials revoked, officials said.

Multiple press associations quickly condemned the new rules and said they will fundamentally change journalists' ability to cover the Pentagon and the U.S. military. They called for the Trump administration to rescind the new requirements, arguing they inhibit transparency to the American people.

Friday afternoon... Hegseth's got ol' grandpa's cough medicine out again for an early weekend start. I wonder what his ex's safe word was...

Allegations of excessive and public drunkenness have long followed Pete Hegseth, particularly during his time leading the veterans' group Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) and working at Fox News. The issue gained significant public attention during his January 2025 confirmation hearings for Secretary of Defense.

Allegations during confirmation hearings

During the confirmation process, multiple media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, and NBC News, published reports detailing numerous incidents of alleged alcohol abuse.

Whistleblower reports: A 2015 report from former CVA employees described multiple instances of Hegseth being "repeatedly intoxicated" at official events. In one case, he allegedly had to be restrained from getting on stage with dancers at a Louisiana strip club.

Sworn affidavit: Hegseth's former sister-in-law submitted a sworn statement to Congress alleging that he "routinely passed out from alcohol abuse" and was once dragged out of a strip club while in uniform.

Ex-wife's concerns: An affidavit from his ex-wife was also sent to the FBI, in which she outlined her fears about his behavior, including her need for a "safe word" to signal her friends when she felt unsafe.

Fox News colleagues: Ten current and former Fox News employees told NBC News that they were concerned about Hegseth's drinking, with some alleging they smelled alcohol on him before broadcasts.

Hegseth's response

Hegseth has consistently denied the allegations, calling them a "coordinated smear campaign" involving "anonymous reports". While he acknowledged having personal issues in the past, he has refused to confirm or deny the specific incidents.

The pledge not to drink

During the confirmation process, Hegseth made a public vow to stop drinking if he were confirmed as Secretary of Defense.

In an interview with Megyn Kelly in December 2024, he said, "I'm not going to have a drink at all... because it's not a problem for me".

He reiterated this promise to senators during his January 2025 confirmation hearing.

However, when asked if he would resign if he broke his pledge and drank on the job, he would not commit.

 

[OrangeTsar]

And just like that; liberals suddenly pretend to care about the Constitution again

Amazing how quiet they were when Biden was pressuring social media to ban conservatives or anyone questioning Covid. Or when Biden kept trying to cancel Student loans without congressional approval. Or when Obama forced people to purchase health insurance. Or when Buden pressured private companies to fire workers who refused the jab.
But of course, all those things were (D)ifferent.

 

[MontyPython]

Who's got the under/over (in days) until a court issues an injunction on the Trump administration's latest authoritarian move?

### Overview of the New Pentagon Press Requirements
On September 19, 2025, the Pentagon (officially rebranded as the Department of War under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth) issued a memorandum implementing strict new guidelines for journalists covering the Department of Defense. These rules, effective immediately, require approximately 90 credentialed reporters to sign a pledge agreeing not to "obtain, possess, or publish" any information—even unclassified—that has not been explicitly authorized for public release by an appropriate Pentagon official. Non-compliance, including reporting on "controlled unclassified information" without approval, could result in the immediate suspension or revocation of press credentials, barring access to the building and military briefings.

Additional restrictions include:
- Limiting unescorted movement to specific areas (e.g., press pens, food court, and courtyard), with escorts required for most hallways and floors.
- Requiring visible "Additional Press Identifier Badges" (bright red or orange) above the waist.
- Prohibiting "unprofessional conduct" that disrupts operations, such as attempting to access unauthorized materials.

The Pentagon justifies these as "common-sense guidelines" aligned with rules at other military bases, aimed at protecting national security and preventing leaks. Hegseth emphasized on X: "The 'press' does not run the Pentagon—the people do. Wear a badge and follow the rules—or go home."

### Legality: Expert Analysis and Precedents
The requirements are **likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment**, which protects freedom of the press from government prior restraint (pre-approving or censoring content). Legal experts and press advocates argue they compel journalists to waive core investigative rights in exchange for access, effectively turning independent reporting into state-sanctioned propaganda. No court has directly ruled on these specific rules yet (as of September 21, 2025), but the Pentagon Press Association is reviewing them, and lawsuits from outlets like The New York Times and the National Press Club are expected imminently.

Key legal concerns:
- **Prior Restraint Violation**: Forcing a pledge not to report unauthorized information—even unclassified—amounts to government veto power over stories, banned in cases like *New York Times Co. v. United States* (1971, the Pentagon Papers case), where the Supreme Court struck down an injunction against publishing classified documents, ruling that such restraints are "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Seth Stern of the Freedom of the Press Foundation stated: "The government is legally prohibited from requiring journalists to surrender their right to investigate the government in exchange for access or credentials."
- **Access as a Conditional Privilege**: While the government isn't required to grant press access to secure facilities (no constitutional right to enter the Pentagon), it cannot condition that access on waiving First Amendment protections. Katie Fallow of the Knight First Amendment Institute called this "the Trump administration’s broader assault on free speech," noting that journalists who "publish only what the government ‘authorizes’" are no longer reporting. Precedent in *Sherrill v. Knight* (1977) affirmed that press access to government facilities must be based on viewpoint-neutral rules, not content control.
- **Vagueness and Overbreadth**: Terms like "unprofessional conduct" or "improperly obtain" give the Pentagon "wide latitude" to deem reporters "security threats" for routine journalism, potentially chilling speech in violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. This echoes challenges to vague media restrictions in *Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement* (1992).

| Perspective | Arguments For Legality | Arguments Against Legality |
|-------------|------------------------|----------------------------|
| **Pentagon/Administration View** | Aligns with DoD Manual 5200.01 on protecting classified info; mirrors base access rules; access is a revocable privilege for security, not a right. | N/A (Pentagon claims no legal issues). |
| **Press Advocates & Legal Experts** | N/A | Violates First Amendment by imposing prior restraint; conditions access on self-censorship; unprecedented control over unclassified info. |
| **Defenders on X (e.g., @weRessential)** | Like private-sector NDAs; Pentagon owes no access; curbs abuse of leaks. | Critics (e.g., @steel_city_girl) call it "straight up censorship" and a threat to free press. |

### Broader Context and Reactions
These rules build on earlier 2025 restrictions: In January, workspaces were reassigned to favor conservative outlets like Breitbart; in May, escorts were mandated after a Yemen strike leak scandal. The National Press Club labeled it "a direct assault on independent journalism," warning it undermines public oversight of military decisions. Lawmakers and outlets like NPR and The Guardian condemned it as eroding democracy, especially amid Trump's recent calls to punish "negative coverage."

On X, reactions split along partisan lines: Supporters see it as necessary security, while opponents decry it as authoritarian. If challenged in court, precedents heavily favor the press, but enforcement could delay accountability until resolved—potentially months or years. Reporters can still use FOIA requests or off-site sources, but on-site access loss would severely hamper coverage.

 

[Majors]

And just like that; liberals suddenly pretend to care about the Constitution again

Amazing how quiet they were when Biden was pressuring social media to ban conservatives or anyone questioning Covid. Or when Biden kept trying to cancel Student loans without congressional approval. Or when Obama forced people to purchase health insurance. Or when Buden pressured private companies to fire workers who refused the jab.
But of course, all those things were (D)ifferent.

Missed those guys (figure of speech don’t get offended they/them/she/her) from 2020-2024.

 

[Wireless1]

I can only assume this is a reaction to the “mission” leak where a reporter was accidentally included in a communication group. How many “eager to scoop” reporters would out our troops in harms way.
I think back to Chris Low having the inside on Chris Lofton’s cancer diagnosis,
1A is first for a reason, but in today’s click bait world sometimes there needs to be guardrails.

 

[Majors]

I can only assume this is a reaction to the “mission” leak where a reporter was accidentally included in a communication group. How many “eager to scoop” reporters would out our troops in harms way.
I think back to Chris Low having the inside on Chris Lofton’s cancer diagnosis,
1A is first for a reason, but in today’s click bait world sometimes there needs to be guardrails.

Low had to ask for permission to ESPN to hold the story. Kudos to ESPN and Low for having integrity that does not exist today in honoring Lofton’s wishes.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I guess at this point the journalist’s best hope of getting the skinny on any big ticket item is to get a random Signal group chat invite from Hegseth?

 

[sami]

And..... we violate that Constitution some more. I mean, why bother having one at this point.

The real problem is that each side rationalizes it when it's their side doing the violating. The Constitution has been getting stomped on by both parties for the last 150 years, and has only shifted into overdrive over the last 20+ years. Maybe the answer is to stop having loyalty to politicians and political parties that don't give a rat's ass about the concerns and priorities of average working Americans.

 

[rjd970]

And just like that; liberals suddenly pretend to care about the Constitution again

Amazing how quiet they were when Biden was pressuring social media to ban conservatives or anyone questioning Covid. Or when Biden kept trying to cancel Student loans without congressional approval. Or when Obama forced people to purchase health insurance. Or when Buden pressured private companies to fire workers who refused the jab.
But of course, all those things were (D)ifferent.

Whataboutism aside, it appears they are on the same page as you. So you are not good with this either?

 

[volfanhill]

I guess at this point the journalist’s best hope of getting the skinny on any big ticket item is to get a random Signal group chat invite from Hegseth?

Lol

 

[volfanhill]

And just like that; liberals suddenly pretend to care about the Constitution again

Amazing how quiet they were when Biden was pressuring social media to ban conservatives or anyone questioning Covid. Or when Biden kept trying to cancel Student loans without congressional approval. Or when Obama forced people to purchase health insurance. Or when Buden pressured private companies to fire workers who refused the jab.
But of course, all those things were (D)ifferent.

So you've become as spineless as a liberal from 2020-2024?

 

[volbound1700]

I guess it depends on the information. If they are criticizing military officials or decisions, that is fair game.

If they are reporting on troop movements or deployments, I am fine with that being banned.

Sounds like it is the first issue they are trying to limit which is disturbing.

 

[n_huffhines]

I am not a fan of abridging the press’ right to report, but this seems different to me.

It is not completely clear to me from the reporting, but the new regs seem to apply to reporters with “access” to the Pentagon. In other words, if the press reports on goings-on from knowledge acquired from specially granted access to the Pentagon wi the out approval, the Pentagon may revoke that specially granted access.

That doesn’t seem to be out of line with any number of other situations reporters may face, such as “on-background” or “off-the-record” conversations. If the press violates those, their sources will dry up, too. This seems to be putting reporters on notice as to info acquired under special access only, not a more general across-the-board prohibition.

Jesus, dude

 

[McDad]

The article is written in a confusing way. There is a pledge to sign about sharing classified or unclassified ("controlled") information. But the pledge seems to be about unrestricted access to areas of the building itself...both classified and controlled.

Does anyone who read the article have insight?

 

[volfanhill]

The article is written in a confusing way. There is a pledge to sign about sharing classified or unclassified ("controlled") information. But the pledge seems to be about unrestricted access to areas of the building itself...both classified and controlled.

Does anyone who read the article have insight?

It does both.

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

Using the rebranded "Department of War" acronym, "DoW," the 17-page document obtained by NPR outlining the new rules for the media says those who fail to obey the new policy will lose their press credentials — cutting off access to the headquarters of the largest department in the U.S. government.

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

As far as the movement and access part goes that is well within the pentagons prerogative