The Pentagon’s new restrictions on reporters are outrageous and unconstitutional.
Pentagon Gears Up for a Fight
The Pentagon said it would forbid reporters from gathering any information that had not been authorized for release, and would revoke press passes from any journalists who did not obey.
The New York Times reports Read the Pentagon’s New Restrictions on Reporters
That’s a free link to the 17-page document.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) comments The Pentagon Press Gears Up for a Fight
Pentagon reporters are scrambling to come up with a response to an unprecedented policy restricting how they cover the military, as a deadline to sign a pledge not to report on unauthorized information looms.
The policy, issued by the Department of Defense in a seventeen-page memo on September 18, demands that journalists covering the Pentagon sign a document promising to report only on material “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official, even if it is unclassified.” Failure to do so by September 30 would result in the loss of their “hard pass,” the coveted press credential that permits certain reporters regular, unescorted access to the building. Pentagon officials recently told reporters they could request an additional five days to “consult with legal counsel” before the policy would be enforced.
One editor of a military-oriented publication told CJR that they had “heard of discussions taking place” about a legal challenge, and noted that their staff was not likely to comply with the new policy if it goes fully into effect. “Securing access to the Pentagon, to the building, is not worth giving up the ability to write more than press releases and official statements,” the editor said. “I think that we’re all kind of expecting to just get kicked out of the building,” said another member of the Pentagon press corps. “None of us are signing this pledge.”
The restrictive policy is not the first time Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a former television commentator, has wrestled with the press. In January, Hegseth ordered a reshuffling of the long-standing arrangements of the Pentagon press offices, evicting the Times, NPR, and Politico from their dedicated workspaces and replacing them with Breitbart News and the One America News Network. He’s also struggled to contain leaks and critical reports about his leadership, including his own private Signal chats—inadvertently shared with the editor of The Atlantic.
Reporters who cover the Pentagon describe an atmosphere of tension and anxiety throughout the building, with normally talkative sources afraid to speak. “The fear is palpable,” said Thomas Brennan, the founder and executive director of the military-focused site The War Horse. “I would say the resistance to talk is stronger than it’s ever been before, at least in my thirteen years. There’s a real fear of retaliation.” The member of the Pentagon press corps agreed: “I don’t really expect to have good conversations on the phone anymore, especially with people who are in the building, because there’s a fear that people could be listening. There’s definitely a culture of fear.”
Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, says the Pentagon’s new policy looks like a classic case of unconstitutional prior restraint, and should therefore be vulnerable to legal challenge. “Usually, prior restraints are aimed at a particular document,” he said. “So this is broader than you would typically see.” The policy also fundamentally warps the role of journalism in covering government agencies, Stern added. “It’s not the journalists’ burden to keep the government’s secrets for it,” he said. “That is the opposite of the press’s job, which is to tell the public what the government doesn’t want the public told. The government cannot condition a benefit on forfeiture of First Amendment rights.”
Hegseth Tries Turning Back 94 Years of Press Freedom
Bloomberg comments Hegseth Tries Turning Back 94 Years of Press Freedom
In a 17-page memo that journalists will now be required to undertake only to publish material that has been “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official, even if it is unclassified.” If they don’t sign this undertaking, they lose their access to the building and all military facilities, and with it their ability to cover the defense policy of the world’s largest military power.
“National security” doesn’t arise as an issue; of course the military has an interest in keeping plans for its next operation secret but such information is classified, and this policy now seeks to control even unclassified information.
To justify the measure, Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, channeled this distrust: “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do.”
In the Pentagon Papers case, the New York Times and Washington Post won the right to publish a critical analysis of the war in Vietnam that the defense establishment had decided not to publish.
It’s not a question of whether the people or the press controls the department, as Hegseth frames it, but rather whether the press should be able to monitor it on behalf of the people.
Under the current interpretation of the First Amendment, American journalists have charted the disasters in Vietnam, the horrible mistakes in Iraq and the abuses in Abu Ghraib jail in 2003, and Joe Biden’s disastrous retreat from Afghanistan in 2021. It would have been difficult if not impossible for them to do these things had Hegseth’s rules been in force.
Justice Hugo Black on the Pentagon Papers
The last opinion written by Justice Hugo Black before his death was on the Pentagon Papers.
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
Pentagon Papers – New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Please consider JUSTIA US Supreme Court review of New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) Hugo Black
In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech.
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.
The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.
Far Beyond the Pentagon
Unfortunately, these actions go far beyond the Pentagon. Trump is suing political opponents just because he does not like what they say.
As of October 2025, Donald Trump is engaged in several lawsuits against media organizations, including a new $15 billion defamation suit against The New York Times.
YouTube agreed to pay $24 million to settle Trump lawsuit. A notice of settlement details that $22 million will go toward building a new White House ballroom.
In July, Paramount Global settled with him for $16 million after he took issue with a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris that aired on CBS.
Trump is also suing The Wall Street Journal over its reporting about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.
On September 19, NBC reported Judge tosses Trump’s $15B New York Times lawsuit, calling it ‘improper’ and ‘invective’
Undoubtedly that is the correct decision.
Tactics Working
It costs a lot of money to defend these lawsuits. If the amounts are small enough, it’s easier to settle. And many companies did.
Thus, Trump’s tactics are working precisely because he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution. That’s the point of it all.
He wants to impose Gestapo-like fear in anyone who disagrees with him and has largely succeeded.
The next Democrat president may do the same. By then, it will be too late for Republicans to howl.
Silence is Deafening
The hypocrites in charge of this government would have been outraged had the Biden or Obama administration pulled these same stunts.
Imagine the reaction of Fox News if it was told that it could only report the official view of the Pentagon or its reporters would be banned.
Instead of mass outrage, we have silence. Well, strike that. We have people defending Trump making a racist ass out of himself.
Idiots Have Free Speech Too
A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed expresses my views perfectly: Idiots Have Free Speech Too
I’d rather be subjected to Jimmy Kimmel than protected from him by government.
It was Napoleon who likely said, “Never interrupt your opponent while he is making a mistake.” Instead—free speech be damned—Mr. Carr threatened to revoke ABC broadcasting licenses, and then President Trump piled on to take credit and also hassle NBC. An unnecessary mic drop for sure.
Is speech free anymore? The First Amendment is clear against laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” Sadly, government’s heavy hand has been around too long. Google recently admitted that the Biden administration pressured the company to censor thousands of YouTube users for political speech. Disgraceful.
Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan that Biden folks would “scream” and “curse” at Meta employees (words you can’t say on TV?) to get them to take down ill-defined “misinformation.” ABC, Google and Meta have the right to limit speech on their own networks, but government absolutely can’t tell private companies to “abridge” speech. That’s an abuse of power.
Others want muzzles. In 2019 Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted: “Look let’s be honest, @realDonaldTrump’s Twitter account should be suspended.” On Jan. 8, 2021, Donald Trump was “permanently” suspended from Twitter—following bans from Facebook and Instagram.
Remember when the Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative nonprofits over their tax-exempt status—with the intent to limit speech it didn’t like? I do. The IRS later provided a “sincere apology.” Gee, thanks.
Vice President JD Vance recently said of those celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk, whose open-debate format was a pure form of free speech, “Call them out, and hell, call their employer”—like a sixth-grade hall monitor.
This has to stop. I believe in free-speech absolutism. Period. Mic drop.
Even Hillary Clinton agrees, sort of. On Sept. 18, she told CNN, “You defend free speech in terrible times. You defend free speech that is used against holding people in power accountable through satire, humor, barbed attacks. You defend it when it is offensive.” You go girl! Except in 2016 she urged Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to nullify Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), a free-speech and campaign-finance decision that protected a movie critical of her.
There are those who believe calling Republicans “fascist” and Mr. Trump “Hitler”—about as vile an insult as there is—set the stage for today’s political violence. But free speech means you can say what you want (without inciting immediate violence). But that doesn’t stop others from labeling you small-minded or (can I say this?) cretinous.
We all have a constitutional right to free speech, but society also has moral codes against humiliating and degrading others.
Free speech is for everyone, although civility seems to be only for the civil. Say what you want about birthing people, carbon spewing, the need for racism to fight racism or even comparing the president to someone who ran extermination camps. That’s your right. But you’ll lose my respect and trust for a long time. And don’t be surprised if I think you’re a blathering chucklehead. Like Jimmy Kimmel.
What an excellent op-ed by Andy Kessler.
So, yeah, Trump has a “right” to make an ass of himself in extremes no other president has used.
I also like Kessler’s article because he point out hypocrisy by the Democrats as well.
Both parties want to restrict what the other side says, but Trump has started more lawsuits and inane regulation to do so.
Flag Burning
If idiots want to burn the flag, I say go ahead. Show everyone you are an idiot.
And Trump?
Trump makes an ass out of himself: Donald Trump Issues Ultimatum to American Flag Burners
President Donald Trump, writing on Truth Social, informed “ICE, Border Patrol, Law Enforcement, and all U.S. Military” that “from this point forward, anybody burning the American Flag will be subject to one year in prison” in accordance with a previous executive order.
That is a clearly unconstitutional executive order. But Trump does not give a damn about the constitution.
Free Speech Irony of the Day
Yesterday I wrote Trump Tries to Win Over Hispanic Voters with Targeted Video
I criticized Trump’s racist video on X portraying House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries with a sombrero, a mustache and mariachi music playing in the background.
Click above to play the video.
A reader replied to my post “Mish. What happened to free speech??? Shame on you!”
The irony is staggering. I responded:
What happened to the ability to think?
When did I say Trump had no right to racist speech?I 100% endorse Trump’s right to make racist comments.
But racist comments and videos are still racist, and my right to free speech gets to point that out.
Now since you are lecturing me on free speech, I just happen to have a post coming up on that.
The irony of your comment with what Trump is doing to free speech is staggering.
To repeat, I endorse Trump’s right to say what he wants no matter how big an ass he makes of himself in the process. But suddenly, this is a one-way street.
The Trump administration is working hard to kill freedom of speech involving any criticism of Trump.
And a reader lectures me on freedom of speech. What a hoot.
