Inside the Right‑Wing Takeover of the Pentagon Press Corps: ‘Mouthpieces for Trump’?

Inside the Shift

Once one of the most prestigious beats in U.S. journalism, the Pentagon press corps has undergone a rapid transformation. Where seasoned reporters from established newspapers and broadcast networks once dominated, recent briefings have featured a roster heavily populated by right‑wing activists, partisan commentators and niche conservative outlets.

What Changed

In October, nearly all credentialed reporters from traditional outlets gave up their Pentagon press passes rather than sign a 21‑page agreement that imposed strict limits on reporting activities. The document requires signatories to pledge not to obtain unauthorized material — effectively constraining reporters to information the Pentagon provides — and places restrictions on entry to parts of the building.

Who Received Access

After the walkout, the Pentagon began issuing passes to dozens of conservative figures and organizations that accepted the terms. Those granted credentials include Laura Loomer (a Trump confidante who has described herself as a 'proud Islamophobe'), LindellTV (an online channel founded by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell), and Matt Gaetz (the former congressman who now appears as a host on One America News Network). Other signees include Turning Point USA, the Daily Signal, the Gateway Pundit and The Post Millennial.

Why Scrutiny Matters

Critics say the shift is especially consequential because the Pentagon is facing substantive questions about operational security and use of force. An independent report from the Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General found that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth "created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed US mission objectives and potential harm to US pilots" after discussing details of a Yemen operation on the encrypted messaging app Signal. That Signal group chat included a journalist from The Atlantic, and the episode prompted calls for Hegseth’s resignation.

The department is also under scrutiny over a separate incident involving a double strike on a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean.

Reactions From Legal and Academic Experts

“Everything about the press and the way it works requires independence from the government,” said Gregg Leslie, executive director of the First Amendment Clinic at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. “Once they start making decisions that discriminate against you based on how you’re going to cover something or what your viewpoint is, that’s going to become completely unacceptable.”

Carole‑Anne Morris, a journalism professor at UNC Greensboro, was blunt: signing the Pentagon’s terms, she said, ties journalists to official narratives and undercuts independent reporting. “They can’t seek out information on their own. Doesn’t sound like journalism to me,” she said.

Legal Challenge

The New York Times has sued the Pentagon and Secretary Hegseth, arguing the agreement "seeks to restrict journalists’ ability to do what journalists have always done — ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements." Legal experts warn the policy may violate First Amendment protections.

Pentagon Response

Facing criticism, the Pentagon published an upbeat release describing three days of "onboarding" for its revamped press corps, saying more than 70 independent journalists, bloggers and "social media influencers" had completed training. Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon’s press secretary, defended the change: "This 'new media' operates differently than traditional media, and Pentagon leadership believes it is better equipped to inform a broader swath of the American public about what goes on inside the department."

What This Means

The debate centers on whether the Pentagon’s credentialing and access rules will permit meaningful, independent oversight of military policy and operations. Supporters say the department is expanding its reach to new audiences; critics warn the new corps risks becoming a set of government‑friendly amplifiers rather than skeptical watchdogs.