Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's Assault on Journalism

Opinion

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's Assault on Journalism
tóng-àn:The Pentagon, cropped square.png – Wikipedia

The Trump Administration is ramping up its ongoing effort to curtail press freedom. While much attention has been paid to ABC’s cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel Live! under pressure from Trump’s media enforcer, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendon Carr, the Pentagon has announced draconian new restrictions on the press.

Last week, as the Boston Globe noted, it said “credentialed journalists at the military headquarters” will be required to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release….Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon.”


You read that right.

Reporters will now have to obtain permission from the individuals they are covering before publishing stories about them or anyone else.

This seems like the kind of thing which we might expect from the Kremlin in Moscow or from Communist China. Or, maybe in a parody of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, but the Trump Administration is making it an American reality in 2025.

Let’s face it. Neutering the press is one way of neutering democracy.

And defending the press is an important way to defend democracy. It is not easy to do so at a time when officials regularly accuse reporters of peddling fake news, and when public confidence in the news media is at an all-time low.

However, it has never been as crucial for Americans to push back against the kind of restrictions on the press that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is imposing as it is right now. They are, as Kevin Baron, the former vice president of the Pentagon Press Association, puts it, “100% an attempt to kill transparency and funnel all public information through the government, which goes against every constitutional principle of free speech you can imagine.”

Before discussing those restrictions further, let me elaborate on the importance of press freedom for the health of democracy.

Let’s start with Thomas Jefferson’s 1878 tribute to the press. “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people,” he said, “the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Twelve years later, as if foreseeing the present moment, Jefferson observed, "Our citizens may be deceived for a while, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light."

Alexander Hamilton also believed that "the liberty of the press consists in the right to publish, with impunity, truth, with good motives and for justifiable ends" was essential in making it possible for the public “to know the truth about its government and leaders” and to make informed electoral choices.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln “loved newspapers for what they were and for what they could do for him in politics.” But he was also quite vexed by what he perceived as animosity from some leading publishers.

During the Civil War, Lincoln even allowed his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, to shut down two New York newspapers after they published a forged presidential proclamation calling for 400,000 more troops through either voluntary enlistment or a new draft. Lincoln believed that doing so would undermine the war effort.

However, Lincoln did not do more to control the press because he understood its importance in facilitating dissent in a democratic republic.

A little less than a century later, the renowned Judge Learned Hand described the role of the press and its operation this way: “News is history; recent history, it is true, but veritable history, nevertheless; and history is not total recall, but a deliberate pruning of, and calling from, the flux of events. Were it possible,” Hand added, “by some magic telepathy to reproduce an occasion in all its particularity, all reproductions would be interchangeable.”

“But,” Hand explained, ”there is no such magic; and if there were, its result would be immeasurably wearisome, and utterly fatuous. In the production of news, every step involves the conscious intervention of some news gatherer, and two accounts of the same event will never be the same.”

That is how a free press feeds a free people. It does so by offering differing accounts of public events and allowing the public to see the political world from different angles.

And in 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black gave, I think, an articulation of the role of the press in the United States that allows us to see clearly the danger of what Pete Hegseth is doing at the Pentagon. “In the First Amendment,” Black wrote, “the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy.”

“The press,” Black continued, channeling Jefferson, “was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.”

“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

Black concluded that “Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.”

That brings us back to the Pentagon’s new policy concerning the press. It imposes the very kind of prior restraint that Black understood would mean the death of press freedom and of democracy itself.

That policy is detailed in an eighteen-page document issued on September 18. In one sentence, it says, “DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust.” But in the next, it offers its own Kafkaesque version of transparency: “DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.”

One might reasonably ask how likely it is that any such official will authorize the release of information that “bares the secrets of government” or exposes “deception in government?”

Moreover, reporters covering the Pentagon will no longer be allowed on several floors of the building unless they have a government escort. In the past, journalists could walk the halls independently.

As Hegseth described them, the new guidelines make clear that “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do.” The press, he said, “is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules — or go home.”

What Hegseth would have us forget is what Jefferson, Lincoln, Hand, and Black knew. If the press is not free to do its job, then the people will not be able to run the government, including the Pentagon.

That, I suspect, may be exactly what the Secretary of War and his colleagues in the Trump Administration hope to achieve.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.


Read More

Two people looking at a computer screen at work.

On America’s anniversary, a call for young innovators to embrace AI, drive prosperity, and lead through the new U.S. Tech Corps initiative.

Getty Images, pixdeluxe

Ask Not What AI Can Do for You

Just about 250 years ago, young Americans risked everything to fight for a better future--one in which their loved ones, neighbors, and progeny could exercise individual liberty and collective prosperity. Their fight for democracy was regarded by many as a fool’s errand. People aren’t to be trusted. Only the enlightened should govern. Top-down, tyrannical approaches to governance were the only path forward.

But the American people rallied behind an optimistic vision and refused to accept the status quo. Where’s that spirit of liberty and commitment to building a better future today?

Keep ReadingShow less
Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
A U.S. flag flying before congress. Visual representation of technology, a glitch, artificial intelligence
As AI reshapes jobs and politics, America faces a choice: resist automation or embrace innovation. The path to prosperity lies in AI literacy and adaptability.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Why Should I Be Worried About AI?

For many people, the current anxiety about artificial intelligence feels overblown. They say, “We’ve been here before.” Every generation has its technological scare story. In the early days of automation, factories threatened jobs. Television was supposed to rot our brains. The internet was going to end serious thinking. Kurt Vonnegut’s Player Piano, published in 1952, imagined a world run by machines and technocrats, leaving ordinary humans purposeless and sidelined. We survived all of that.

So when people today warn that AI is different — that it poses risks to democracy, work, truth, our ability to make informed and independent choices — it’s reasonable to ask: Why should I care?

Keep ReadingShow less
A person on their phone, using a type of artificial intelligence.

AI-generated “nudification” is no longer a distant threat—it’s harming students now. As deepfake pornography spreads in schools nationwide, educators are left to confront a growing crisis that outpaces laws, platforms, and parental awareness.

Getty Images, d3sign

How AI Deepfakes in Classrooms Expose a Crisis of Accountability and Civic Trust

While public outrage flares when AI tools like Elon Musk’s Grok generate sexualized images of adults on X—often without consent—schools have been dealing with this harm for years. For school-aged children, AI-generated “nudification” is not a future threat or an abstract tech concern; it is already shaping their daily lives.

Last month, that reality became impossible to ignore in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. A father sued the school district after several middle school boys circulated AI-generated pornographic images of eight female classmates, including his 13-year-old daughter. When the girl confronted one of the boys and punched him on a school bus, she was expelled. The boy who helped create and spread the images faced no formal consequences.

Keep ReadingShow less