In a move that has sent shockwaves through the journalism community, the Pentagon has taken an unprecedented step to restrict press access, leaving many to wonder: Is reporting on the military now a criminal act? A bold statement, “Journalism is not a crime,” appeared on the walls of the Correspondents’ Corridor at the Pentagon on Tuesday, serving as a silent yet powerful protest against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new policy. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the policy claims to regulate access, media lawyers and advocates argue it effectively criminalizes routine reporting, forcing news outlets into an impossible choice—comply or lose access entirely.
And this is the part most people miss: as journalists began surrendering their press passes on Tuesday, a sense of defiance mixed with disappointment filled the air. Some reporters noticed and appreciated the poster, only to find it removed by Wednesday. Ironically, an old plaque promoting the Pentagon’s commitment to the “free flow of information” still hangs in the hallway, raising questions about the institution’s current stance. Press freedom advocates argue that Hegseth’s actions directly undermine these principles by pushing reporters out and stifling their ability to communicate with sources.
With Hegseth holding ultimate control over access, journalists had little recourse after negotiations with the press office failed. Only one outlet, the lesser-known pro-Trump channel One America News, has publicly agreed to the new terms. Meanwhile, major Trump-aligned networks like Fox News, Newsmax, and The Daily Caller have outright rejected the policy. As Gen. Jack Keane pointed out on Fox, “Hegseth and his aides want to spoon-feed information to journalists, and that’s not journalism.”
The backlash doesn’t stop there. Military Reporters and Editors, a respected professional organization, issued a scathing statement, calling the policy “an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and the American people’s right to know how their tax dollars fund the world’s largest military.” Behind closed doors, even military officers who regularly interact with the press have expressed regret, with one reporter describing the scene as filled with “grim, sad faces and apologies.”
One longtime military journalist, speaking anonymously, highlighted a deeper concern: “In a nation where the military and civilians often live in parallel worlds, this move will only widen the divide.” Tony Bertuca, chief Pentagon editor for Inside Defense, sees this as part of a troubling pattern. “The government has been discouraging inquiry for months—few press briefings, minimal engagement, and a reliance on one-way communication via social media,” he explained. The new credentialing rules, he added, will make it even harder to hold accountable an agency that spends hundreds of billions of public dollars annually and makes decisions with life-or-death consequences.
Yet, Bertuca remains undeterred. “The defense beat is about following the money,” he said as he prepared to hand in his badge. “With a $1 trillion budget, they can’t hide. I won’t stop doing my job.”
But here’s the question that lingers: Is this a necessary security measure, or a dangerous overreach that threatens the very foundation of press freedom? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is a debate that demands your voice.
