Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance
The Pentagon’s Attack on Free Speech Doesn’t Have To Work
Sep 22, 2025
When it comes to things the government can’t do without violating the First Amendment, imposing prior restraints on what the media can report is near the top of the list, absent a compelling rationale. That’s what the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers case, New York Times v. U.S., was about.
But that’s exactly what the Trump administration is doing at the Pentagon. Under a new policy, journalists could be required to sign a document pledging that they will not gather or use any information that has not been formally authorized for release—even if it isn’t classified. The long-standing practice at the Pentagon permitted journalists to move freely through the hallways, gathering unclassified information from both military and civilian sources. The new policy restricts their movement, confining them to a specific space and requiring them to be escorted to other parts of the building. Pete Hegseth’s Department of Defense has said that journalists who violate the new policy are at risk of losing their press credentials.
It’s not difficult to see what’s going on here. The administration wants to control what does and doesn’t get reported on, violating the tradition of journalism in this country that comes to us directly from the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. They’re also shutting down criminal investigations like the one reportedly looking into a $50,000 cash bribe to immigration czar Tom Homan and indefinitely suspending annual reports on food insecurity. It’s the tightest control on information the country has experienced in peacetime in the modern era. Because it involves placing a prior restraint on what journalists can report, it looks like a clear violation of the First Amendment.
By now, we know how this administration works. In their search to expand presidential power, they seize upon a time-honored norm and then try to challenge it in the courts. Just today, the Supreme Court took another step towards burying Humphrey’s Executor, the FDR administration case that until now has prevented presidents from firing appointees to quasi-independent boards like the Federal Trade Commission. There is no reason to believe the administration isn’t prepared to take this to the Supreme Court—perhaps arguing that the scope of information should be protected because it’s intrinsic to national security.
The First Amendment protects the press’s right to expose government deception and hold officials accountable, sometimes even when dealing with classified or controversial information. In other words, when Donald Trump objects to reporting about him that is negative, when he sues media outlets that are critical of him, he’s infringing on speech that is plainly protected by the First Amendment. That’s what has made it so disturbing to watch some news outlets voluntarily cave in to his demands before litigation can even get underway. Bending the knee may have made business deals that required government approval possible, but it is contrary to what the First Amendment requires of them, and at least arguably, contrary to their obligation to the public.
Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.
Continue/Read Original Article Here: (1) The Pentagon’s Attack on Free Speech Doesn’t Have To Work
Discover more from DrWeb's Domain
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
