In a sweeping rebuke of the Pentagon’s new media policy, top American news organizations — including The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, Reuters, NPR, and The Guardian — have refused to sign a Defense Department agreement that would limit journalists’ ability to report independently on U.S. military affairs.

The controversial policy, introduced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, requires news outlets to pledge not to seek or publish unauthorized information and to refrain from accessing certain Defense Department areas without official escorts. Outlets that refuse to sign risk losing Pentagon press credentials — access crucial for covering national defense and security issues.

The deadline for compliance passed Tuesday, triggering a clash that has quickly become one of the most significant press freedom battles of the decade.

Media organizations say the Pentagon’s new rules represent a direct attack on the First Amendment and the independence of the press.

In a public statement, Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray warned that “the proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information.”

The New York Times echoed that concern, stating the Pentagon’s new rules “constrain how journalists can report on the U.S. military, which is funded by nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars annually.” Times Washington bureau chief Richard Stevenson added, “The public has a right to know how the government and military are operating.”

Other major outlets — including Reuters, NPR, HuffPost, and The Atlantic — have joined the boycott. HuffPost editor-in-chief Whitney Snyder called the policy “flatly unconstitutional,” saying it aims to “snuff out actual news-gathering at the nation’s largest and best-funded federal department.”

Even conservative-leaning Newsmax declined to sign, saying it “believes the requirements are unnecessary and onerous” and expressed hope that “the Pentagon will review the matter further.”

Pentagon officials have pushed back on the criticism, saying the press has misinterpreted the rules.

Spokesperson Sean Parnell told The Washington Post that outlets were “moving the goal posts,” claiming the new policy only asks reporters to acknowledge the rules, not agree to them.

Parnell dismissed the backlash as a “meltdown” by journalists and defended the policy as necessary to “protect troops and safeguard national security.”

Defense Secretary Hegseth responded sarcastically on social media, posting a waving-hand emoji in reply to media statements and sharing a mock list titled “Press Credentialing for Dummies.” The post ridiculed the idea of unrestricted press access, suggesting journalists had “grown too comfortable roaming free.”

The Pentagon Press Association (PPA), representing reporters who regularly cover defense operations, condemned the new policy in a formal statement.

According to the PPA, the revised guidelines “appear designed to stifle a free press and potentially expose reporters to prosecution for simply doing their jobs.” The group said the rules send “an unprecedented message of intimidation” to Defense Department personnel, discouraging any unapproved communication with journalists.

“This policy implies that speaking to reporters without permission could be a criminal act — which plainly, it is not,” the PPA stated.

Press freedom advocates warn that the move could have a chilling effect on journalism, discouraging sources from speaking out on military misconduct, waste, or policy failures.

This controversy comes amid growing tension between the government and traditional media. Earlier this year, the Pentagon evicted several long-time outlets from its media workspace under what it called an “annual rotation program.” The White House introduced a similar shuffle, giving briefing room seats to influencers and podcasters over established journalists.

Critics say these policies are part of a broader effort to curate and control media access, eroding transparency and accountability in federal institutions.

Legal experts have warned that such restrictions, if upheld, could set a dangerous precedent for other agencies to limit journalistic access under the guise of security or policy compliance.

While nearly all mainstream outlets have refused to sign the pledge, the far-right network One America News (OAN) announced that it would comply.

Former congressman and OAN host Matt Gaetz said the network is “happy to follow these reasonable conditions,” aligning the outlet with Hegseth’s stance.

The divide underscores a growing polarization in the U.S. media landscape — where questions of access, objectivity, and ideology increasingly shape how outlets cover government institutions.

The Pentagon’s new policy has ignited a fierce debate over press freedom, government transparency, and the role of journalism in democracy. With nearly every major outlet refusing to comply, this standoff may soon move beyond rhetoric and into the courts.

At stake is more than access to Pentagon briefings — it’s the principle that a free press must remain independent, even from the institutions it covers.

As this story unfolds, the question remains: will the U.S. government step back from what critics call an “unconstitutional overreach,” or will this mark a turning point in how America defines freedom of the press in 2025?

Join over 4 million Americans who start their day with 1440 – your daily digest for unbiased, fact-centric news. From politics to sports, we cover it all by analyzing over 100 sources. Our concise, 5-minute read lands in your inbox each morning at no cost. Experience news without the noise; let 1440 help you make up your own mind. Sign up now and invite your friends and family to be part of the informed.

Join for free today!