Dem
47
GOP
53
Well, OK, a black polygon. But you get the point. The Tuesday deadline has come and gone, and now there is no press pool at the Pentagon, except for one lonely soul who works for OANN. Every single other news organization declined to sign the pledge demanded by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. That pledge not only would have made it impossible for any serious journalist to do their job (since Hegseth and his minions would have complete control over the information the reporters could use), but it also carried the threat that any reporter who broke the rules might be deemed a "security threat." We all know what this administration does to people it considers security threats.
As this process has shaken out, Hegseth behaved exactly as we expected he would. Not only did he not change course, he also prowled eX-Twitter, and posted snarky comments on various organizations' announcements that they would not sign the pledge. Now, he's not exactly Lenny Bruce or George Carlin when it comes to snark, so Hegseth mostly indulged in emojis, particularly good-bye waves and chef's kisses. Donald Trump, who does not appear to have been consulted about the policy (that's becoming something of a motif these days), nonetheless announced yesterday that he supports it, and he's got Hegseth's back. The President told reporters: "I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace. The press is very dishonest." So, the new policy is likely here to stay, at least until the next presidential administration.
If you are interested in the nitty-gritty of why this is such a problem, there were a couple of very good op-eds on the subject yesterday. First, longtime NPR military affairs correspondent Tom Bowman penned a piece headlined "Why I'm handing in my Pentagon press pass." He writes:
Thomas Jefferson, no fan of the press himself, once wrote that our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, "and that cannot be limited without being lost." He knew a free and fair press is an essential safeguard to a functioning democracy.
So now, how will the American people find out what is being done at the Pentagon in their name, with their hard-earned tax dollars, and more importantly, the decisions that may put their sons and daughters in harm's way? With no reporters able to ask questions, it seems the Pentagon leadership will continue to rely on slick social media posts, carefully orchestrated short videos and interviews with partisan commentators and podcasters.
No one should think that's good enough.
In the op-ed, which is worth reading, Bowman discusses several examples of reporting he did, on both Republican and Democratic administrations, that would not be possible under the new rules.
Meanwhile, if you want to see what the new policy looks like from the viewpoint of someone who's been on the other side of the press-conference podium, Mark Hertling is a retired three-star general. His op-ed is headlined: "Locking Down the Pentagon Press Is Dangerous," and it reaches the same conclusion as Bowman's piece:
The Pentagon is not merely tightening a policy. It is attempting to redefine journalism inside the building as a narrow privilege granted on condition of obedience—"authorized" questions only, escorted steps, badges forfeited if you decline to sign. The effect is a kind of prior restraint: The government decides what reporters may seek before they seek it, and punishes them for seeking anything else. That view collapses the vital distinction between operational security—protecting specific plans and capabilities so people don't die—and institutional protection, which too often means shielding organizations from scrutiny or embarrassment. The first is essential; the second is poisonous to public trust.
Let me stress that point: Operational security matters. Every experienced commander knows the difference between information that would get people killed if it's disclosed and information that would get a staffer disciplined if it's reported. In the field, commanders handle that with rules and relationships. We embedded reporters and lived the ground rules with them. We told them what they could not release yet—and why—and we trusted them with the rest. That approach was hardly perfect. It was, however, constitutional, and it helped the American public understand what their sons and daughters were doing in their name. As we built trust, I never saw that relationship fail.
The policy now on the table in the Pentagon errs in the opposite direction. It treats routine newsgathering as a presumptive threat and assigns overseers to herd journalists into controlled spaces and controlled questions. It's not just that this runs against the First Amendment; it's that it runs against the interests of the Department of Defense itself. A military that becomes opaque becomes mistrusted. A leader who cannot answer basic questions without requiring a signed obedience form will not increase confidence among troops, families, or allies. These rules will increase speculation, rumor, and the belief—fair or not—that someone is hiding something. That's not how you build legitimacy in a democracy. It's how you lose it.
Again, if you want specific examples from Hertling's career, his op-ed has you covered.
We wish there was something hopeful we could add here, but... there just isn't. Hegseth is a small man with a thin skin who is acting out his fascist fantasies. And the only person who could tell him "no" has no problem with what the Secretary of Defense is doing. (Z)