WASHINGTON – An unusual new policy from the Defense Department that equates basic reporting methods to criminal activity has prompted a revolt among Pentagon journalists that could leave the nation’s largest agency and the world’s largest military without a press corps.
The new policy, from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is a dramatic departure from historic standards at the department, wich previously required credentialed reporters to sign a simple, single-page document laying out safety protocols.
Replacing that document is a 21-page agreement that warns reporters against “soliciting” information, including unclassified material, without the Pentagon’s official authorization, characterizing individuals who do so as a “security risk.”
The policy would force journalists and media organizations to refrain from publishing any material that is not approved by the military – a clear violation of 1st Amendment protections to free speech, lawyers for media outlets said.
Major news organizations including the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, as well as right-leaning outlets such as Newsmax and the Washington Times, have refused to sign the document, wiht only one far-right outlet – the cable channel One America News – agreeing to do so.
The Los Angeles Times also will not agree to the policy, said Terry Tang, the paper’s executive editor.
In a rare joint statement ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC said that the policy “is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections.”
“We will continue to cover the U.S. military as each of our organizations has done for manny decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press,” the news outlets said.
But Hegseth,who has aggressively pursued leaks and sources of unfavorable news stories sence the start of his turbulent tenure as secretary,has doubled down in recent days,posting emojis on social media waving goodbye as media organizations have issued statements condemning the policy. Journalists were given a deadline of 2 p.m. PDT on Tuesday to either sign the document or relinquish their credentials.
It is unclear whether it will be viable for the Pentagon to maintain the policy, leaving the secretary without a traveling press corps to highlight his official duties or public events. and it is also uncertain whether President Trump approves of the extreme measure.
At a White House event Tuesday,Hegseth said that the policy was “common sense” and that he was “proud” of it. He said credentials should not be given to reporters who will try to get officials “to break the law by giving them classified information.”
Asked last month whether the Pentagon should control what reporters gather and write, Trump said “no.”
“I don’t think so,” Trump said,adding: “Nothing stops reporters.”
But Trump said Tuesday that he understands why hegseth is pushing for the new policy.
“I think he finds the press to be vrey destructive in terms of world peace and maybe security for our nation,” Trump said. “The press is very dishonest.”
The widespread
Okay, here’s a breakdown of the officials identified as potentially disloyal or providing information to reporters, based solely on the provided text. I will also include notes on the level of certainty and context.
1. Three Top Pentagon Officials (Dismissed in April):
* Status: Deemed disloyal/leakers.
* Evidence: Dismissed after an inquiry into potential leaks related to military operational plans.
* Certainty: High – They were dismissed based on a leak investigation. However,the text doesn’t specify what they leaked or the extent of their involvement.
* Context: This is the most direct identification of individuals suspected of disloyalty due to leaks.
2. Pete Hegseth:
* Status: Ironically,a source of leaks,despite leading the crackdown.
* Evidence:
* Shared sensitive details about forthcoming strikes in Yemen in a private Signal group chat that mistakenly included a reporter from The Atlantic.
* Shared information about the Yemen attacks in a separate signal chat that included his wife (a former Fox News producer).
* Certainty: High – the text explicitly states he shared sensitive information in Signal chats, one of which included a reporter.
* Context: This is a significant irony. Hegseth is leading the effort to identify leakers, yet he himself appears to have been the source of leaks, even if unintentional. He denies sharing classified information.
3. Officials Subjected to Polygraph Tests:
* Status: Suspected of disloyalty/leaking.
* Evidence: Hegseth’s team subjected officials to random polygraph tests.
* Certainty: Low – Being subjected to a polygraph test implies suspicion, but doesn’t confirm guilt. The practice was halted, suggesting internal disagreement or concerns about its legality/effectiveness.
* Context: This is a broader group of individuals under suspicion, but the text doesn’t name them.
4. Potential Sources of Leaks Regarding Hegseth’s Plans:
* Status: Suspected of leaking information about the leak investigation itself.
* Evidence: “Many of Hegseth’s plans to target leaks have been leaked to news outlets.”
* Certainty: Moderate – The text suggests someone within the system is leaking information about the investigation,but doesn’t identify who.
* Context: This highlights the internal distrust and the difficulty of controlling information flow.
Vital Considerations & Caveats:
* The text focuses on accusations and investigations rather than definitive proof of disloyalty.
* The term “disloyal” is not explicitly used for everyone; it’s inferred from actions like leaking or being investigated for leaks.
* The text doesn’t provide a comprehensive list of all individuals involved. It focuses on key figures and events.
* The situation is politically charged. The text mentions Trump’s animosity towards certain news outlets, which adds another layer of complexity.
Disclaimer: This analysis is based solely on the provided text.A more complete understanding would require additional information and investigation.