The Department of War has released a revised version of its controversial press-credentialing pledge, as first reported by The New York Times. The updated document scales back several provisions that drew sharp criticism from journalists, press freedom advocates, and members of Congress.
The new version, dated Oct. 6, replaces the earlier Sept. 18 document that required reporters to obtain government pre-approval before publishing any information, even if it was unclassified. That language, described by multiple legal experts as a form of prior restraint, has now been removed entirely, marking a major reversal by Pentagon leadership.
This updated version comes after weeks of mounting criticism from major news organizations and industry groups. In late September, I published the first on-the-record refusals from credentialed Pentagon reporters, who stated that they would not sign the original pledge, including Jennifer Judson, senior land warfare reporter for Defense News and former president of the National Press Club. Their refusals were the first public rejections of the policy, which until then had been widely condemned but not openly defied.
PENTAGON RESERVATION IN-BRIEF FOR MEDIA MEMBERS UPDATED 10-6-25 by jmdglss
Pentagon Media Pledge Revision Removes Pre-Approval Requirement
The revised “Pentagon Reservation In-Brief for Media Members” was circulated to accredited journalists on Monday, accompanied by a cover memo from Pentagon Press Office Director Col. Chris Devine. The package explicitly states that it “supersedes” the September 18 version and narrows its focus to information security and physical access procedures.
The new language eliminates nearly all of the editorial restrictions that drew national criticism. For the first time, the document affirms that reporters “are not required to submit their writings to DoW for approval” and that receiving or publishing unsolicited material “is generally protected by the First Amendment.” It also specifies that the in-brief “does not prohibit” journalists from engaging in “constitutionally protected” newsgathering or reporting.
While the new text acknowledges that “nothing in this document requires you to waive any constitutional rights,” it retains the same strict escort rules that have limited media movement within the building since May. Unescorted access remains confined to select corridors, the Center Courtyard, and the 1st Floor food court.
According to the Pentagon, the recredentialing process will begin on or about Nov. 1. Reporters have one week from the Oct. 6 distribution to review the terms and may request additional time to confer with legal counsel. Those who decline to sign risk losing their Pentagon Facility Alternate Credential (PFAC).
My FOIA Request Seeks Transparency on Who Signed the Pledge
Shortly before the Pentagon released the revised pledge, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request on Sept. 22 seeking records that show how the policy is being implemented.
Specifically, I requested:
- The total number of journalists and news organizations that have signed the “Pentagon Reservation In-brief for Media Members” acknowledgment, and
- The names and dates of those who signed.
I also asked for expedited processing, arguing that the request involves the public’s right to know who is being asked to agree to government pre-approval rules. The Pentagon acknowledged the request on Sept. 23 but denied expedited processing, citing more than 3,200 pending cases.
The request remains open. If fulfilled, it would provide the first public record of who had signed the initial version of the Pentagon’s pledge, information the department has so far withheld.
Pentagon Describes Changes as ‘Clarifying Business Rules’
In an internal memo signed by Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell, the department said it had “engaged with members of the Pentagon Press Association and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press” to address concerns raised after the policy became public. The memo described the revision as one that “more clearly defines our collective business rules for working within the Pentagon Reservation.”
The Pentagon also said it remains committed to “providing credentialed media with professional, functional workspaces that support their ability to effectively report the news.” It did not address whether it plans to restore the more open access that reporters had before 2025, when escort-only policies and workspace removals began.
Reaction From the Press
The revised pledge has done little to ease concerns among journalists and press freedom groups, who say the Pentagon’s changes do not go far enough.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said it remains concerned that the updated language could still deter reporters from signing.
“We still have concerns with the updated language of the policy and expect that it will pose a significant impediment as journalists weigh with their employers whether or not to sign this revised version,” said Gabe Rottman, the group’s vice president of policy.
The Pentagon Press Association (PPA), which represents credentialed reporters who cover the War Department, issued a sharply worded statement Wednesday calling the revised rules “an unprecedented message of intimidation.”
The PPA acknowledged that the Pentagon is no longer requiring reporters to express agreement with the new policy as a condition for obtaining press credentials, but said the new version still asks journalists to affirm in writing their “understanding” of policies that “appear designed to stifle a free press and potentially expose us to prosecution for simply doing our jobs.”
The statement also disclosed that the Pentagon plans to relocate all accredited media outlets from their longstanding workspaces inside the building, a move the association said would “further isolate reporters, making it harder to interact even with the spokespeople inside the Pentagon who are entrusted to approve information for public release.”
“Let’s be clear about the facts,” the group added. “Pentagon reporters have always worn badges, and continue to do so to this day. Every political administration going back to the 1950s — including the first Trump administration — has allowed the same level of access.”
Both groups said the revisions do not resolve the broader problem of conditioning press access on compliance with restrictive security language that could chill newsgathering.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth has defended the new policies as necessary for national security amid a rise in unauthorized disclosures, arguing that the press “does not run the Pentagon.”
A Measured Reversal
The Pentagon’s revision represents a significant retreat from its earlier position. While the new language removes the most alarming editorial restrictions, it leaves other access limitations intact and raises new questions about how credentialing data will be handled.
For now, the revision appears to concede what journalists, lawyers, and lawmakers have argued for weeks: that conditioning press access on government pre-approval is incompatible with a free and independent press.
Last Updated on October 14, 2025 by Joe Douglass
