Even Fox is calling out Hegseth’s effort to stifle the press

The Pentagon could quash reporting of any and all information any journalist gets if Pentagon officials don’t want that information out there.

With so many disastrous moves coming from the Trump administration, you might have missed this one. Or perhaps you know about it only because Jimmy Kimmel brought it up in his return-to-air monologue. Either would be understandable. But even amid everything else going on, the Pentagon’s new effort to stifle the media is “breathtaking.” And that’s according to someone who works for Fox News.

“This is actually quite breathtaking in terms of its implications for the free press. There is no precedent for what they’re doing here,” said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and Fox contributor. He was discussing a new policy that would require Pentagon journalists to get the administration’s approval before reporting even unclassified information.

Unfortunately, many diehard Trump fans will probably never hear this. It’s not about attacking Democrats, so it’s unlikely to make prime time on Fox. And because President Donald Trump has soured on the channel, many Trumpists tune in to more extreme right-wing media now. They might only see what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants them to see. In a tweet, he posted a story from a right-wing website that claims “’Here’s the policy in a nutshell: wear a media credential.”’

No, that’s not what the policy says. Here’s what’s actually happening.

The Pentagon issued a memo establishing requirements for journalists who seek access to the site. It’s long, so perhaps Hegseth was hoping no one would notice what was slipped into it. But fortunately, some did.

In a paragraph that might literally go down in U.S. history for memorable moments of obvious hypocrisy, the department -- which has renamed itself the “Department of War” -- wrote this: “DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust.” So far, so good. Then came the next sentence: “However, DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.”

This is huge. It means the Pentagon could quash reporting of any and all information any journalist gets if Pentagon officials don’t want that information out there. “What they’re basically saying is if you publish anything that’s not in the press release, it’s not the official statement of the Pentagon, you could be held responsible under this policy,” Turley said. “That is going to create a stranglehold on the free press.”

It’s worth remembering who we’re talking about here. This is the same department that included a journalist on a top-secret Signal chat about war plans. If Pentagon leaders want to do something about information leaks, they should look within.

Interestingly, it’s unclear whether Trump knew this effort was coming. Asked whether the Pentagon should get to decide what reporters report, Trump responded, “No, I don’t think so.” Trump, of course, benefited bigly from Pentagon reporting during the Biden presidency, as USA Today columnist Chris Brennan has detailed.

To Americans not steeped in the inside language of beltway journalism and complex rules around document categorizations, the idea that the Pentagon wants to protect sensitive information may seem sensible. So in the new episode of They Stand Corrected, my podcast fact-checking the news, I dig into the difference.

Journalists sometimes get classified information. Good ones don’t rush to report it. Leaders and editors look at it and consider its potential ramifications. When there are important questions or concerns that need answering, government officials are often invited to give their arguments as to why certain materials should not be reported. Ultimately, the decision is up to the news agencies.

Sometimes they report it anyway. One of the most famous examples is the “Pentagon Papers.” At other times, the public learns later on that a news agency honored the government’s request, at least for a block of time. A famous example is the New York Times sitting on information about a warrantless surveillance program under President George W. Bush for more than a year before reporting it. The decision to hold off came after an “unprecedented step,” in which the president summoned the publisher and editor “to the Oval Office to make a final pitch not to publish,” according to a study from the Shorenstein Center. (As a fact check, I’ll note that we can’t know whether it was really unprecedented. The Times or another agency may have had a similar meeting and never reported it.)

In cases like these, the public can weigh in, judging the news agency’s decision. In a society that reveres freedom of speech, this process makes sense. Public scrutiny is and should remain the most important force holding the media accountable.

The government should never have news agencies sign over their editorial control. The Society of Professional Journalists says the Pentagon rule constitutes “prior restraint.” As the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University explains, “Prior restraint is a form of censorship that allows the government to review the content of printed materials and prevent their publication. Most scholars believe that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press includes the restriction of prior restraints.”

This is what Kimmel was talking about in his monologue. “It’s not just comedy. He’s gunning for our journalists, too,” he said of Trump, before citing the Pentagon’s new move. “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.”

Maybe now people will.

Josh Levs is host of They Stand Corrected, the podcast and newsletter fact-checking the media. Find him at joshlevs.com.

---