The Atlantic’s editor, Jeffrey Goldberg – who earlier this year received sensitive details about an upcoming military strike after being mistakenly added to a Signal group chat that included Hegseth – said the policy violated First Amendment rights, and the rights of Americans who sought to know how taxpayer-funded military resources were being used.
“We fundamentally oppose the restrictions that the Trump administration is imposing on journalists who are reporting on matters of defence and national security,” he said.
The Pentagon has given pass holders until 5pm on Tuesday (8am Wednesday, AEDT) to sign up to the policy or face being kicked out of the building within 24 hours.
‘Access is a privilege’
On X, Hegseth reacted to news organisations announcing their decision by quoting their post and adding a hand-waving emoji, indicating “goodbye”.
He said the new policy, which includes clarifications about building access, would bring the Pentagon in line with other US military installations.
It would mean accredited journalists were “no longer permitted to solicit criminal acts”, Hegseth said. “Pentagon access is a privilege, not a right.”
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the department stood by its policy because it was best for US national security and the country’s troops. He said the policy did not require journalists to agree, but to acknowledge they understood it. “This has caused reporters to have a full-blown meltdown, crying victim online.”
But the Pentagon Press Association said the new document, which ran to 21 pages, contained extensive legal claims about what was allowed, and laid out “unprecedented contentions” about what is and isn’t acceptable news-gathering.
Loading
“The Pentagon certainly has the right to make its own policies, within the constraints of the law,” the alliance said.
“There is no need or justification, however, for it to require reporters to affirm their understanding of vague, likely unconstitutional policies as a precondition to reporting from Pentagon facilities.”
The association said the policy was particularly problematic because it required journalists to agree “that harm inevitably flows from the disclosure of unauthorised information, classified or not – something everyone involved knows to be untrue”. It called the situation “disturbing”.
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.
