The uproar over the Pentagon’s new press accreditation rules is far more than another Beltway skirmish — it’s a fundamental test of how America safeguards the tension between liberty and security.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recently announced that journalists covering the Pentagon must agree not to seek or publish “unauthorized information.” That move set off alarm bells across the mainstream media. Major outlets including The New York Times and The Associated Press have refused to sign the policy, arguing it muzzles reporters and revives memories of the Pentagon Papers era — when secrecy and spin too often replaced transparency and truth.
Hegseth, for his part, insists the policy is necessary to protect operations, prevent leaks, and keep America’s enemies — China, Iran, Russia, and others — from exploiting insider information. In today’s world of instantaneous data sharing, AI-assisted espionage, and cyber intrusions, he’s right to worry. But the question remains: how far should the Pentagon go to protect the nation’s secrets without crossing the line into censorship?
I’ve spent a quarter of a century inside that building — first in uniform as an Army officer and later as a defense contractor. During much of that time, I also served as a media analyst and became well acquainted with the Pentagon press corps — their access, their relationships, and the rhythms of covering the world’s most powerful military institution. I can tell you firsthand: the Pentagon is not just another federal agency. It’s the nation’s war room, where decisions made in minutes can have life-or-death consequences for troops on the ground. Unrestricted access without accountability invites risk—not merely public embarrassment, but potential national harm.
This isn’t a new problem. In 2002, I was part of what became known as “Rumfeld’s military analysts’ group,” a team of retired officers who met regularly with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during the run-up to the Iraq War. We were given inside perspectives — sometimes talking points — to help explain Pentagon decisions to the American public. Critics accused the Bush administration of trying to shape opinion, and investigations followed. I learned then just how narrow the line is between transparency and propaganda, between informing and manipulating.
Secretary Hegseth’s concern today stems from the same dilemma — only in a more dangerous environment. Washington, and the Pentagon in particular, has a long history of leaks. In an age of digital espionage, even an innocent conversation overheard in the wrong corridor can have global consequences. Requiring journalists to follow strict protocols inside the Pentagon may appear heavy-handed, yet it reflects how perilous and porous security has become in the digital age.
Still, the critics raise an important point: freedom of the press is not a privilege granted by government, it’s a cornerstone of our republic. The press exists to hold power accountable, especially the kind of power housed inside the Pentagon’s walls. If restrictions are written too broadly or enforced too aggressively, they risk chilling investigative reporting and eroding the public’s trust. A republic built on self-government cannot afford a military establishment that operates in the shadows.
The truth is, both sides share responsibility. Journalists must treat Pentagon access as a privilege that comes with duty — to inform the public without endangering lives. Likewise, defense officials must craft policies that guard legitimate secrets while avoiding the temptation to suppress political inconvenience. There’s a difference between classified information and inconvenient truth.
After a lifetime in uniform and years walking those Pentagon corridors, I can say this with confidence: security and transparency aren’t enemies — they’re partners in preserving the republic. Yes, the Pentagon requires firm guardrails to protect classified operations and defend the men and women who serve. But those guardrails must never become barriers to truth.
America’s founders understood that liberty without security is fragile — but security without liberty is tyranny. The Pentagon must find the balance, not by silencing the press, but by building a culture of mutual respect, responsibility, and realism.
That’s not just good policy. It’s the American way.
Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
