Freedom of the press is enshrined in the very first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Not the second, not the last, but the first. This fundamental right is vital to holding the government accountable and maintaining an informed citizenry, both of which ensure our democratic strength as a nation. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that these basic rights and characteristics of our society are being rendered obsolete.
Dismantling Freedom of the Press
Defense Secretary Hegseth ramped up restrictions on the release of information from the Pentagon, including making unclassified information subject to review and redaction by Pentagon Secretary Sean Parnell and the Pentagon Force Protection Agency prior to distribution to journalists. Journalists are forced to comply with these new regulations or they risk losing all access to the Pentagon.
Congressional members are held accountable by their constituents. The Supreme Court is held accountable by the Senate. The executive branch, however, does not have an intragovernmental check. Instead, the press has a unique and important role in holding the executive branch accountable.
Before this restriction, journalists could release unclassified information without losing access to the Pentagon, even if it was not officially approved by a Pentagon official. However, now, the Pentagon must approve the release of all information before publication. In clearer terms, the Pentagon didn’t need to review and approve every piece of information before it was published, but now all information that journalists report must be approved.
Publishing classified information is even harder now than before. Journalists could independently access certain areas of the Pentagon, but are now required to have a government escort to access these same areas. This new policy makes it harder for journalists to interview Pentagon officials and serves as a deterrent to journalists asking for more engagement with other areas of the Pentagon. The new policy’s text is ambiguous on whether escorts can intervene with the journalists while they investigate. If a journalist or official violates one of the regulations, the policy subjects them to “adverse consequences”. These restrictions are not enforced equally across left-leaning and right-leaning media. Some prominent, left-leaning media outlets (such as CNN) have had their Pentagon access revoked, while more conservative news outlets with much less credibility (such as Univision) have maintained their access.
The Trump administration promised that “fake news” would be abolished and replaced with accurate reporting, free expression, and government transparency to uphold the freedom of the press and free speech. This was motivated by concerns of censorship, damaged reputations, and lack of opportunity for public oversight over the bureaucracy. However, recent Trump policy does the polar opposite.
Preliminary Signs
Pete Hegseth was an unusual choice for Secretary of Defense. He is the most historically unqualified and incompetent candidate to ever serve in this position. This is dangerous for other executive agencies, national security, and the greater American public.
It was not long after his confirmation hearing that Sec. Hegseth’s ineptitude proved to have disastrous consequences. Specifically, Sec. Hegseth breached security protocol by texting highly classified war plans on his personal phone in a group chat which included a reporter from the Atlantic. This incident, which occurred in March 2025, became known as the “Signalgate scandal.”
Once this story broke, Sec. Hegseth and his team were embroiled in controversy and were (rightly) at grave risk of losing their positions, status, power, and reputation. When this occurred, the court of public opinion, and the media, were aware of the situation and thus were able to hold everyone involved in the scandal accountable through continued press coverage and scrutiny. While Sec. Hegseth was able to avoid significant personal damages, the public was able to see a form of justice delivered through accountability, and the scandal opened up debates as to the state of national security within this administration. The process, reporting, and fallout of Signalgate was proof that the system of free press, granted and outlined in the framework of the Constitution, works. Now, however, this system is called into question.
Dismantling the U.S. Constitution
There are many reasons why Sec. Hegseth implemented this new policy at the Pentagon. Before getting into these, it’s important to understand that there are already strict guidelines in place as to what media outlets can release and report on to ensure national security. For example, before the new policy, journalists could ask officials for classified information and publish it, but after publication, if the information was deemed a danger to troops or national security, journalists were subject to due process to determine whether they violated the Espionage Act.
These new privacy measures could be preventative medicine, ensuring that something such as Signalgate never happens again (after all, the Defense Secretary’s glaring, perilous errors are well-established at this point). This protects Sec. Hegseth’s job position and enables him to enact controversial policy decisions, such as those outlined in the Republican political agenda, Project 2025. It could also be a way of strengthening Sec. Hegseth’s personal control of the narrative within the Department of Defense (DoD) (in the name of national security) by allowing him to choose what kind of information is disseminated to the public. The information the public receives is what determines its political agendas, and influences public views on specific parties and political actors. The media landscape in America certainly seems to prioritize “horse race journalism” (competition centered and sensationalized journalism) and profit.
Whatever the reasons for this policy may be, the only thing of importance is that this policy dissolves the press’ crucial roles of holding the executive accountable and serving the public through truthful reporting and whistleblowing. This power was granted to the press in the Constitution and enshrined in law to protect the liberty of U.S. citizens.
President Trump disagrees with this new policy, claiming that “nothing stops reporters.” This is strange, because one may think that Trump would favor tighter restrictions on the press, given him actively withholding information regarding the Epstein Client list (as one can assume disastrous political consequences for him if this gets out.)
Consequences
With limited reporting, citizens (whose taxes fund the military) will trust the government less, and become less engaged and aware of their responsibilities as citizens. This new policy makes it clear that the Pentagon’s main priorities lie in avoiding responsibility and increasing secrecy. The Department of Defense is not held accountable by citizen or executive opinion.
Furthermore, covering up incompetence and errors doesn’t make them go away. Public insight, participation, and opinion are essential checks to make sure that government officials are acting in a manner that upholds the health of our nation; This has not changed since 1776, and its significance has been prevalent throughout history. Policies spurred by the press have influenced laws, executive decisions, and have ended wars.
The Pentagon recognizes this particular power of the press, and thus seeks to abolish it. This abolition effectively makes it so that news regarding military affairs is strictly controlled, and what the public perceives as truth is carefully manufactured.
These are hallmark signs of authoritarianism: (1) making criticism illegal, (2) dissolving any sense of accountability, (3) curtailing free speech and censoring the press, and (4) restricting the flow of information. The new restrictions match signs one and three because they disallow information to be released that embarrasses the DoD and impose severe consequences on journalists that break, or fail to accept or comply with, the rules, as discussed above. Strong leadership is vital for Americans, and it entails being open to criticism and adjusting accordingly. Strong leadership allows for protections of basic civil rights and liberties, and ensures a healthy military. This new law regarding the press is a complete contradiction to the text of the Constitution. Actions such as these set precedent for the military to control what liberties the citizens have, and they bleed out, allowing for other governmental agencies to eliminate constitutional protections.
Featured Image Source: The Atlantic
