Translated by Aurora Forlivesi
On Wednesday, October 15, at four in the afternoon, the countdown reached zero at the Pentagon: dozens of journalists who had offices inside the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense packed up their belongings, returned their badges, and walked out of the building together. They represented nearly all the reporters covering the Pentagon; only fifteen remain. For the first time in decades—since Eisenhower’s presidency in 1953—reporters from the major American news outlets will no longer have offices inside the Pentagon: not only those historically aligned with the Democrats, but also many traditionally Republican—and even pro-Trump—media organizations.
The almost unanimous decision to leave the headquarters of the U.S. Armed Forces—and thus to distance themselves from the places and direct contacts that had long allowed for inside coverage—was, in fact, a matter of professional ethics. At the end of September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had announced that Pentagon journalists would be required to sign a document introducing new restrictive rules on access to the building and, above all, on publication practices.
Before Hegseth’s tenure, journalists were required to sign a one-page document titled “Security Awareness Briefing for Media Members”, which listed ten security rules—such as the obligation to keep their badge visible, ensure office doors were closed, and comply with metal detector screenings. The new document, however, spans 21 pages and is presented as an implementation of the memorandum “Updated Physical Control Measures for Media Access to the Pentagon.”
In particular, journalists were alarmed by two statements made by Hegseth:
“Information from the Department of War (the ‘second name’ chosen by the current administration for the Department of Defense, Ed.) must be approved before publication by an authorized officer, even if the information is not classified.”
And then: “The press is no longer authorized to wander through the halls of a protected facility […] Wear a badge and follow the rules — or go home.”
Even before this policy, reporters’ access to certain areas of the Pentagon—previously permitted—had already been either prohibited or made conditional on being escorted.
According to the secretary, these are “common-sense” rules designed to protect the public interest: the press, he argued, should have no more rights than other Americans. Access to the Pentagon, he said, is a privilege—(echoing the earlier words of spokeswoman Leavitt: “It is a privilege to cover the White House. That’s an invitation that is given”)—and therefore a concession that comes with rules to be followed. President Trump echoed his secretary’s stance, attacking the press for being deliberately misleading and deceptive, and implying that excluding it serves the common good.
According to the press, this constitutes a violation of First Amendment rights.
Hegseth’s words carried an ultimatum: under the new rules, if information that has not been approved by the secretary is made public, the authors risk being expelled from the building. The negotiations that the Pentagon Press Association tried to hold with the secretary in hopes of easing at least some of the restrictions proved futile. Hence the journalists’ decision to pack up their belongings and move their work outside the Pentagon’s walls.
All news outlets saw the new rules as a consistent continuation of a broader agenda of antagonism toward press freedom, primarily driven by President Trump. Earlier this year, for instance, the Associated Press had been denied access to the Oval Office; the historic White House press pool had later been reshaped at the President’s discretion; the foreign broadcaster Voice of America had been shut down; funding for AP, Reuters, and others had been cut (as previously reported); and most recently, Jimmy Kimmel had been suspended. In all these cases, concerns were raised about violations of free speech and press freedom, reviving discussions about threats to the First Amendment. Paradoxically, the very threat from which Trump and Hegseth claim to be protecting citizens is the one created by these decisions.
Opposition to the crackdown came from both sides of the political spectrum. Among newspapers, both progressive outlets like The New York Times and more conservative ones like The Washington Times and Newsmax opposed the measures and withdrew from the Pentagon. Television networks issued a joint statement asserting that the new rules would prevent reporters from “keep[ing] the nation and the world informed of important national security issues,” signed by both CNN and Fox News Media—a group that, in addition to being pro-Republican, had employed Pete Hegseth before he became “Secretary of War.” Only One America News remained in the department’s offices.
The presence of journalists on-site is, first and foremost, in service of the public, according to Washington Post reporter Tara Copp: “we are in the hallways because we can be there to talk to people, to get a sense of things, to understand what the ground truth is, and not just get the one official narrative […] and that’s an invaluable service to the public”. For this reason, most of the journalists involved have stated that they will continue covering the Pentagon, and their sources do not appear to have vanished. The day after the mass departure, Reuters published an exclusive report on a U.S. attack on a vessel in the Caribbean, which was confirmed the following day by Trump. Reuters’ source remains anonymous, identified only as “a U.S. official.”
Over decades of working inside the department’s offices, journalists have built extensive networks of sources and informants. Many, some fear, will inevitably be too afraid to respond. Yet Nancy Youssef of The Atlantic has received other assurances: information will continue to reach journalists—not out of defiance toward Hegseth, but in defense of constitutional values.
Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2025