Journalists turn in access badges, exit Pentagon rather than agree to new reporting rules
Summary
Dozens of Pentagon-based reporters handed in their access badges on 15 October 2025 and left the building instead of signing new rules imposed by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. The rules would have made journalists vulnerable to expulsion for seeking or reporting information not pre-approved by the Defence Department. Around 40–50 reporters left together at a 4pm deadline; major news organisations — from The Associated Press and The New York Times to Fox and Newsmax — instructed their Pentagon correspondents to refuse the terms. Only One America News Network signed the agreement. Reporters say they will continue covering the US military from outside the building and warned the rules chill sourcing and transparency.
Key Points
- Reporters rejected a requirement to sign a document acknowledging new Pentagon rules that would restrict solicitation and reporting of unapproved information.
- About 40–50 members of the Pentagon press corps turned in badges and cleared their desks at a 4pm deadline set by the Defence Department.
- Major news organisations united in refusing to accept the rules; only OANN agreed to sign.
- Defence Secretary Hegseth and President Trump defended the policy as “common sense” to control a “very disruptive” press; critics call it a censorship effort and a blow to transparency.
- Journalists vow to continue reporting on military affairs from outside the Pentagon, but warn the rules may chill internal sources and reduce accountability.
Content Summary
The article reports a coordinated response by Pentagon correspondents who chose to surrender access badges rather than accept new reporting restrictions introduced by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. The rules would allow the department to expel journalists who sought or reported information not authorised for release by the Defence Department. Reporters packed up their desks and left together at the 4pm deadline; boxes of documents and equipment were carried out of the press area. The Pentagon Press Association and a wide range of news organisations opposed the policy, calling it incompatible with independent journalism.
The piece notes President Donald Trump’s public backing for Hegseth’s approach and highlights Hegseth’s broader pattern of limiting press access, including few formal briefings and tighter escort rules. Journalists quoted in the article argue that agreeing not to solicit information would undercut the essential work of reporting. Despite the loss of physical proximity, reporters say they will continue covering the Pentagon, though some sources may be deterred from speaking openly.
Context and Relevance
This episode is a flashpoint in ongoing tensions between the US administration and the press. It has broader implications for press freedom, democratic accountability and oversight of the armed forces. Restricting reporters’ on-site access and penalising unapproved reporting risks shifting official communication toward curated social media content and partisan-friendly outlets, reducing independent scrutiny of defence policy, operations and mistakes.
For anyone following media freedom, national security reporting or US politics, this story matters: it signals a deliberate effort by senior officials to control narrative and access, and demonstrates how newsrooms are prepared to act collectively to defend journalistic norms.
Why should I read this?
Because this wasn’t just another press spat — it was a mass walkout by the Pentagon press corps. If you care about who holds the military to account, how leaks and whistleblowers surface, or simply want to know whether official briefings will be the only version of events you see — read this. It explains what changed, who refused to play ball, and why the fallout could reshape defence reporting.