The Defense Department has implemented new regulations that require journalists covering the Pentagon to obtain government approval before disseminating any information, including unclassified material. According to officials, reporters who decline to sign an agreement adhering to these rules risk losing their press credentials.

These measures have drawn swift condemnation from various press associations, who argue that thay will fundamentally alter the ability of journalists to provide independent coverage of the Pentagon and the U.S. military. These groups are urging the Governance to reverse the decision, citing concerns about transparency and the public’s right to know.

The National Press Club has characterized the new requirements as “a direct assault on independent journalism at the very place where independent scrutiny matters most: the U.S. military.”

lawmakers have also voiced their opposition.sen. jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, described the restrictions as “an ill-advised affront to free speech and freedom of the press.”

“Secretary Hegseth’s restrictions on the press are part of a broader attempt by this Administration to cover up missteps, stifle independent journalism, and obscure the truth,” Reed said. “American journalists are not,should not,and must not be mere stenographers for the party in power or the Pentagon itself.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the new measures, writing on X Friday: “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon – the people do.”

The Pentagon communicated the new measures to its in-house press corps via a memo, citing new security requirements.

According to the memo, Defense Department “information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,” emphasizing the need to “safeguard” classified national security information.

The memo also stated that the Department of War – the new secondary name for Department of Defense adopted as part of a rebranding- may provide controlled unclassified information to individuals “when there is a lawful governmental purpose for doing so.” Access to classified national security information is restricted to “authorized persons” with “favorable determinations of eligibility for access, signed approved non-disclosure agreements, and have a need-to-know.”

Violators of these rules may face suspension or revocation of their Pentagon access.

The memo further stipulates that badge access may be denied or revoked if a person is “reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk to DoW personnel or property,” including “unauthorized access, attempted unauthorized access, or unauthorized disclosure of CNSI [classified national security information] or CUI [controlled unclassified information].”

The new rules also impose physical restrictions on reporters, limiting access to large areas of the building and requiring escorts.

It’s the latest effort by Hegseth to confine reporters at the Pentagon.

Earlier this year, the administration largely restricted reporters to the press and food court areas. Previously, Pentagon reporters with badges had access to most areas of the building, excluding restricted zones and those requiring security clearances.

Mike Balsamo, the president of the National Press Club, emphasized the critical role of Pentagon reporters in informing the public about defense spending and military operations.

“If the news about our military must first be approved by the government, then the public is no longer getting independent reporting,” Balsamo said. “It is getting only what officials want them to see. That should alarm every American.”

The Society of professional Journalists has also called for the measure to be rescinded, denouncing it as an attempt “to muzzle the press and deny the American people the transparency and accountability they deserve.”

“This policy reeks of prior restraint – the most egregious violation of press freedom under the First Amendment – and is a dangerous step toward government censorship,” the Society said in a statement. “Attempts to silence the press under the guise of ‘security’ are part of a disturbing pattern of growing government hostility toward transparency and democratic norms.”

The new regulations have sparked widespread debate about the balance between national security and the public’s right to information. Critics argue that these restrictions could lead to a sanitized version of events, limiting the ability of journalists to hold the government accountable.