Journalists from a slew of major news outlets left their workspaces in the Pentagon last week following an October 15 ultimatum by the Department of Defense to sign onto new Department of Defense media policies that would limit access and information. At least 30 news organizations refused to agree to the policy.
We spoke with Mick Mulroy, senior fellow at the Belfer Center’s Intelligence project, about this policy and what it may mean for the relationships between the military, journalists, and the public. Mulroy is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, a retired CIA paramilitary operations officer from the Special Activities Center, and a retired United States Marine.
Q: What do you think motivated the development of this new policy toward journalists?
There is always a tension between the need to protect military activities and classified information and maintaining an open relationship between the military and the media.
After the Pentagon was opened in 1943, media access was tightly controlled. This changed and opened up during the Vietnam War, although after the Pentagon Papers leak, it was restricted somewhat again. Since then, it has opened up significantly.
But registered media access has existed in some form since the Truman administration.
It may be that Secretary Hegseth is concerned about classified information, either national security or national defense, being leaked to the media. This, of course, is a crime for military members or civilian leaders to do, and likely, they would not do so in the regular course of business in the Pentagon with a registered open journalist.
So, this might be more about limited media contact that would be reporting on the internal workings of the Department of Defense.
Q: How does this policy differ from previous Department of Defense approaches to media access and transparency?
Every other administration I am familiar with had a more open relationship with the media. They did not require the signing of this pledge of which many believe runs counter to the First Amendment. In the first Trump administration under Secretaries Mattis and Esper, there was a robust relationship with the media, as is normal in a democracy, as the citizen has a right to know what their military is doing generally.
“Every other administration I am familiar with had a more open relationship with the media. They did not require the signing of this pledge of which many believe runs counter to the First Amendment.”
Q: Do you think this policy is primarily a response to evolving security concerns, or is it more about message control and narrative management?
I think this has more to do with narrative management; again, passage of classified information to an unauthorized person is a crime. It should never happen, but it certainly still could happen outside of the Pentagon or by electronic means.
Q: How should the Pentagon balance the need for operational security with the public’s right to know about military actions and policy?
Registered media know that the passage of classified material and publishing it is a crime and could put military members at risk. If they are embedded with forces, they specifically sign an agreement not to publish information like their location. That is certainly reasonable.
How to improve this issue of undeclared disclosure: educate all members on what is and isn’t appropriate to discuss, restrict contact to designated people in the Pentagon, and for the leadership to set the example they intend to enforce.
Q: What impact do you think it will have on the Pentagon’s relationship with the press corps and the public’s trust in military institutions?
The U.S. citizen must have confidence in the military. It has traditionally been one of the most respected, if not the most respected, parts of the government. That comes with a certain amount of transparency in a free society. Without that transparency, that trust and respect could diminish.
—
Banner photography by Brednan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images