Why is President Trump trying to restrict what journalists can say? | BBC Americast

Key Concepts

• Pentagon Press Restrictions: New rules imposed by the Trump administration on journalists covering the Pentagon, requiring pre-approval for reporting and prohibiting the dissemination of unauthorized or classified information.
• Press Pass Revocation: Mass surrender of press credentials by accredited journalists due to their refusal to comply with the new Pentagon rules.
• First Amendment Freedoms: The constitutional right to freedom of speech and the press, which is central to the debate over the Pentagon's new policy.
• Classified Information: Sensitive government information that, if disclosed, could harm national security.
• Unauthorized Sources: Individuals or documents not officially sanctioned by the Department of Defense for public release.
• Whistleblowers/Insiders: Individuals within an organization who provide information to journalists, often to expose wrongdoing or provide context.
• Pentagon Papers: A historical case in the 1960s where classified documents detailing the US involvement in the Vietnam War were leaked to the press, highlighting the historical role of journalists in publishing sensitive information.
• "Soliciting or Encouraging Government Employees to Break the Law": A specific clause in the Pentagon's new policy that journalists argue is overly broad and could be used to stifle legitimate reporting.
• "Ground Truth": The reality on the ground, as opposed to official narratives, which journalists aim to uncover through their reporting.
• Leak Control: The underlying motivation behind the Pentagon's policy, aimed at preventing the release of information that is critical of the administration or its policies.
• Algorithmic Effect/Filter Bubbles: The concept that individuals, particularly in politics, are increasingly surrounded by like-minded people and information, leading to a distorted view of reality and an inability to engage with opposing viewpoints.

Pentagon Press Restrictions and Mass Walkout

The core issue discussed is a significant change in the rules governing how journalists can cover the Pentagon, implemented by the Trump administration. These new regulations mandate that accredited journalists must sign an agreement promising not to reveal any classified or confidential information. More restrictively, they would only be permitted to report information that has been directly authorized by the Pentagon, essentially requiring pre-approval for all content.

In response to these stringent conditions, nearly every accredited journalist, representing major news organizations such as the BBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Fox News, refused to sign the new policy. Consequently, these journalists have collectively handed in their press passes and walked out of the Pentagon, effectively losing their access to the building. This mass departure is described as an unprecedented and highly unusual move.

The only news organization that reportedly agreed to the new policy was One America News Network (OANN), a conservative outlet known for its support of Donald Trump.

Analysis of Pentagon Policy Clauses and Journalist Concerns

The transcript delves into specific clauses of the new Pentagon policy and the concerns raised by journalists.

"Soliciting or Encouraging Government Employees to Break the Law"

A key point of contention is the policy's distinction between lawfully requesting information and "soliciting or encouraging government employees to break the law by providing confidential government information." The policy asserts that the First Amendment does not grant journalists the right to solicit such information, and that press rights are not absolute, yielding to the government's interest in maintaining confidentiality.

Journalists, however, question the practical difference between this prohibition and the fundamental nature of their work, which often involves dealing with whistleblowers and insiders to uncover information. They argue that this clause could be interpreted to prevent reporting on anything not officially released, even if obtained through legitimate journalistic methods.

Pre-Approval and Reporting Restrictions

The policy extends beyond just preventing the reporting of classified information. It states that regardless of how information is obtained – whether through documents found, conversations, or external sources – it cannot be published without pre-approval from the Pentagon. This is seen as a direct challenge to the core function of journalism, which often involves investigating and reporting on sensitive matters.

The Pentagon Papers are cited as a historical example of reporting on classified information that was deemed to be in the public interest, revealing the US military's conduct in the Vietnam War and contributing to a shift in public opinion. Under the new Pentagon rules, such reporting would theoretically be forbidden.

Trump Administration's Justification and Rationale

The transcript includes statements from Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, explaining their rationale for implementing these restrictions.

Trump's Perspective

Donald Trump views the press as "very disruptive" to world peace and national security, and often labels them as "very dishonest." He suggests that the press corps should be more focused on acknowledging the administration's achievements, such as the Middle East peace initiatives, rather than on internal policies. He draws a parallel to White House press access, suggesting that reporters should have designated areas and not "roam anywhere you want." He expresses concern that soldiers and generals might "make a mistake" by talking to reporters, leading to tragic consequences.

Hegseth's Perspective

Pete Hegseth frames the policy as "common sense stuff" aimed at ensuring national security is respected. He likens the situation to other military installations where badges are required for access. He argues that the press should not try to "get soldiers to break the law by giving them classified information." He also suggests that reporters have moved into the White House and have more access than they should, implying a desire to curtail this.

Journalists' Counterarguments and Perspectives

Journalists strongly refute the administration's claims and highlight the importance of their access and methods.

Tara Cop's (Washington Post) Testimony

Tara Cop, the Pentagon correspondent for The Washington Post, clarifies several points:

• Credentialed Press: Journalists are credentialed and have undergone background checks, but this does not grant them access to classified spaces. Their access is comparable to that of employees at on-site food vendors.
• Public Benefit of Access: Being present in the Pentagon on significant days (e.g., military strikes, casualties) allows journalists to speak with people directly, understand the "ground truth," and provide a more comprehensive picture than official statements alone. This ability to talk to multiple sources and build relationships is deemed invaluable to the public.
• Misconceptions about Access: She directly counters the idea that reporters are roaming freely through classified areas or "talking to anyone who can breathe."

The Nature of Reporting and "Ground Truth"

The discussion emphasizes that journalists seek more than just the official story. They aim to gather information from various sources, including those who may hold critical views of the administration or specific officials like Pete Hegseth. The Pentagon's policy is seen as an attempt at "leak control" to ensure only the official narrative is reported.

The example of the B2 strike in Iran is used to illustrate this. While the official narrative might portray it as a success, reporters heard from military officials that it did not achieve the intended damage. This discrepancy, obtained through non-official sources, is precisely what the Pentagon now seeks to suppress.

Hegseth's Background and Hostility Towards the Press

The transcript notes that Pete Hegseth previously worked for Fox News. Despite this, he has a history of being critical of the press and has shown hostility towards them. His confirmation hearings were contentious, with press reports on allegations of domestic abuse and his advocacy for soldiers accused of war crimes. This history suggests a personal animosity towards journalists and their reporting.

The "Accidental Leak" Incident

A notable incident is mentioned where a journalist was accidentally added to a Signal chat containing confidential information about military operations against the Houthis in Yemen. This highlights that leaks can occur through unforeseen circumstances, not necessarily through journalists actively "soliciting" information from hallways.

James Rosen's (Newsmax) Perspective

James Rosen, Chief Washington Correspondent for Newsmax, explains why his organization refused to sign the Pentagon's new rules:

• Violation of First Amendment: Newsmax views the rules as "onerous and unacceptable" and cutting to the "very heart of first amendment press freedoms."
• Right to Publish Classified Information: The company believes it has the right to publish classified information without approval from the Department of Defense.
• Broader Restrictions: Rosen points out that the rules go beyond just prohibiting reporting on classified information. They also ask news organizations to promise not to report information from "unauthorized sources," which is a significant expansion.
• Journalistic Independence: He emphasizes that effective journalism about the Department of Defense does not solely rely on official statements. Journalists need to gather information from various parts of the government and the think tank community to ask informed questions.
• Historical Context: Rosen draws a parallel to the "Copland" movie analogy, suggesting that even if reporters are removed from their physical workspaces, they can still gather information effectively through other means.

Historical Precedents and Broader Trends

The discussion touches upon broader trends in the Trump administration's relationship with the press and historical context.

Trump's Complex Relationship with the Press

While Donald Trump frequently engages with the press, often holding impromptu Q&A sessions, he also exhibits significant hostility towards critical coverage. Examples include:

• Threatening to move the press corps away from the White House.
• Attempting to block the Associated Press from covering events after a dispute over terminology.
• Cutting funding for government-funded news agencies like Voice of America and public broadcasters like PBS and NPR.

This behavior is characterized as an attempt to "pressure them and try to bully them into reporting the way he likes."

The "Algorithmic Effect" and Filter Bubbles

One perspective suggests that the administration's actions might be influenced by the "algorithmic effect" on politics, where individuals are increasingly surrounded by like-minded people and information. This creates "filter bubbles" that reinforce existing beliefs and make it difficult to engage with opposing viewpoints. This is seen as a more pervasive issue than a specific sinister strategy, reflecting a way of operating where dissenting information is simply dismissed or blocked.

James Rosen's Experience with the Obama Administration

James Rosen shares his personal experience of being investigated by the Obama administration's Department of Justice for reporting on North Korea. He was designated a "criminal co-conspirator" for using classified information, a designation unprecedented for a reporter in US history. This experience underscores the chilling effect such actions can have on journalists and their willingness to pursue sensitive stories.

Conclusion and Synthesis

The central conflict revolves around the Trump administration's attempt to exert unprecedented control over Pentagon reporting through restrictive new rules. These rules, which demand pre-approval of all content and prohibit reporting on unauthorized or classified information, have led to a mass exodus of journalists from the Pentagon.

The administration frames these measures as necessary for national security and to prevent illegal information sharing. However, journalists and observers argue that the policy is primarily a form of "leak control" aimed at suppressing criticism and ensuring only the official narrative is disseminated. They contend that the restrictions violate fundamental First Amendment principles and hinder the public's right to know.

The situation highlights a broader pattern of hostility towards the press from the Trump administration, characterized by attempts to pressure, bully, and discredit journalists. While the administration claims these measures are for security, the widespread refusal of major news organizations to comply, including conservative outlets like Newsmax, suggests a deep-seated concern for journalistic independence and the public's right to access information, even when it is sensitive or critical of those in power. The historical context, including the Pentagon Papers and James Rosen's own experience, underscores the long-standing tension between government secrecy and journalistic inquiry, and the potential dangers of overly restrictive policies.