Pentagon Press Restrictions – Experts Weigh In

On September 18, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a memorandum forbidding reporters from gathering information that hasn’t been formally authorized for release by appropriate department personnel, stating that it would revoke the press passes of any Pentagon reporters who don’t comply. The memo demands that reporters pledge, in writing, that they adhere to these restrictions or risk “immediate suspension” of their Pentagon press status. DOD released an update to the memo on October 6, but did not remove the concerning provisions. As of the October 14 deadline, all but one news outlet had refused to sign the pledge, essentially eliminating the Pentagon press pool overnight.

POGO believes that this policy is an abuse of the secretary’s power, representing both a profound threat to freedom of the press and to the bond of trust between citizens and their military. To underscore the serious consequences of this memorandum, two members of POGO’s staff who have had direct experience with Pentagon press relations — Mark Thompson as a Pulitzer Prize-winning Pentagon reporter and Virginia Burger as a veteran Marine Corps public affairs officer — explained their concerns on this issue and why they view it as a threat to DOD accountability.

What qualifies you to speak on this topic?

Mark - I’ve covered the Pentagon since 1979, scrutinizing the actions of both Democratic and Republican administrations and how they handle national defense. Plus, the First Amendment. That gives anyone — even dolts, and there have been some in the Pentagon press corps over the years — the right to write about our nation’s armed forces, and what they’re up to.

Virginia - I served as an active-duty Marine Corps officer for nine years, from 2016 to 2025. During that time, I was a public affairs officer (PAO), or, as it’s referred to in the Marine Corps, a communication strategy and operations officer. My service included handling press engagements for the Marine Corps in both deployed and garrison environments.

How will these restrictions change the relationship between the DOD and the American public?

Mark - There are many loyal and patriotic U.S. troops who do not dislike the press. Many, in fact, appreciate it keeping an eye on what their superiors are up to. That’s not going to change. But what will change is the tenor of the partnership between the politicians running the Defense Department and the journalists charged with covering it, and that will have an immeasurable impact on how the public understands the DOD. These restrictions from Secretary Hegseth and his team at the top are an abuse of power. They want to provide the U.S. public a limited and sanitized view of what they are actually doing in our name, and are willing to turn over decades of precedents between the Pentagon and the press to do so.

Virginia - These restrictions will erode trust at every level by further politicizing the military and its functions. As the relationship between the press and the DOD sours, reporters will be less likely to give space to the department’s desired themes and messages, weakening the DOD’s own ability to communicate with the public. And if the American people feel like their military is inaccessible, closed off, and unfriendly to public access and discourse, their trust in its functions and abilities will also weaken. This will only further isolate the military from the American public — a marker of increasing authoritarianism.

What will these restrictions mean for broader Pentagon accountability?

Mark - Assuming Hegseth’s restrictions stick — a big assumption — the American people will suffer from a dearth of information about one of the most critical parts of the federal government. Remember, this is a department that risks the lives of young service members every day, in training if not in combat. Not to mention it’s spending its now $1 trillion budget.

Virginia – To Mark’s point, and from my perspective, because of the DOD’s size, budget, and reach, mistakes are made, advantages are exploited, and corruption, unfortunately, does exist. These issues can often be easily masked, hidden, or go unnoticed due to the sheer scale of the DOD, weakening our national defense and credibility, and wasting taxpayer money. It is in everyone’s interest — including the military’s! — that these issues be uncovered and handled. It is frequently reporters that discover and highlight these issues, thus driving positive change within the DOD. Restricting reporters’ abilities to do their job will only make it easier for mistakes to be made, money to be wasted, and corruption to flourish.

How will this pledge impact the relationship between Pentagon reporters and the DOD?

Virginia - In my opinion, the DOD is much more reliant on reporters than reporters are on the DOD. A good journalist will find a way to get their story, but a PAO can only do so much if a reporter isn’t willing to speak to them. Hegseth’s restrictions on reporters’ access to the Pentagon only limit his own department’s communication abilities.

Mark - I was in the Pentagon’s first real-world deployment of the Defense Department National Media Pool to the Persian Gulf in 1987. Neither I, nor any of my former colleagues currently in the Pentagon press corps, have any desire to join the Pentagon steno pool, which is what Hegseth’s restrictions require. No self-respecting reporter can agree to his terms. The fact that Hegseth apparently doesn’t understand the need for independent and robust reporting on the Defense Department boggles the mind. Again, this is an abuse of power, running contrary to the way business has been done between the Pentagon and the press since World War II. Given the sloppiness of the DOD’s current leaders, it’s the responsibility of the press to keep as close an eye as possible on the Pentagon — something Hegseth & Co. are way too eager to deny.

In the past, how has the DOD formally and informally released information to the press?

Virginia – In my experience, PAOs look at releasing information through two avenues: internally and externally controlled means. Internal means are actions the Pentagon can take to carry their own message — this means posting things to DOD-controlled websites and accounts on social media. However, these means typically have limited reach when compared to those of externally controlled means. External means include utilizing the press to carry DOD’s information and messages, either through formal press conferences or working one-on-one with reporters. The better the relationship the DOD has with a reporter, the more likely the information and messages the service needs to convey are relayed to the American public. While these restrictions may achieve Hegseth’s short-term desires of closing off the Pentagon to leaks and personally unflattering stories, in the long run, it will only hurt his own ability to communicate. The department will suffer much more than the press — but maybe that is a tradeoff he is willing to make in order to hide his abuses of power from the American people.

How did you handle finding sources for a story, especially when it dealt with corruption or abuses of power?

Mark - Part of the public’s misperception of the Defense Department is that it is a monolith. It isn’t. Many of our DOD’s service members and civilian employees view reporters as a pain in the neck, but just as many see them as a vital way to get information that their leaders prefer kept hidden to the public. Reporters quickly learn who to ask. It helps win the confidence of such folks if you see them every day at the Pentagon and can shoot the breeze with them in the corridors or cafeteria. That builds mutual trust, which benefits pretty much everyone, except those in charge with thin skins or something to hide.

How does the military deal with reports on information that was not formally released?

Virginia - There is, obviously, information that the service isn’t necessarily willing to provide, often tied to “bad news” stories. That doesn’t mean these stories are illegal or a threat to national security. Like any complex institution, the military has preferences as to what information is shared publicly. In those situations, reporters may find other ways of getting the information beyond formal processes. And as frustrating as that can be for PAOs, it is part of the job. In my experience, reporters will give PAOs heads up prior to a story coming out. When this happens, PAOs do their best to brace for impact — this includes preparing internal stakeholders, writing anticipatory press releases, developing responsive themes and messages, and lining up additional press engagements to ensure that the service’s preferred narrative is also present in the discourse. It's no different than any corporation’s crisis communication actions. And, again, it’s all part of the job. There is no way to fully eliminate bad news coming out, even if you kick out all the reporters from the Pentagon. In fact, restricting the press just means the military weakens its own ability to respond appropriately.

What does Hegseth’s memo suggest about his outlook on DOD transparency?

Mark - The Pentagon’s relationship with the press is a direct reflection of the incumbent defense secretary’s worldview. That’s what makes Hegseth’s animosity so harmful. Hegseth’s edict would give the U.S. public a dimmer view of what its military is doing — and why — beyond the Pentagon platitudes every Defense Department issues, and most Pentagon reporters ignore. If Hegseth & Co. think such pablum is going to nourish the Pentagon press corps, he’s sadly mistaken. Unfortunately, he has to know that his restrictions will simply lead to less well-informed coverage of the U.S. military. That’s a pretty scary stance for a defense secretary to embrace.

This analysis has been updated to note that the Defense Department released a revision to the memo on October 6, 2025.