Bekir IlhanThe Department of War’s new press guidelines have sparked controversy in the United States.
The guidelines restrict press access in the Pentagon and limit journalists’ ability to obtain information and documents that have not been officially released.
US President Donald Trump's officials describe this as a national security measure, but some Pentagon insiders see it as an assault on press freedom.
What is clear is that the entrenched bureaucracy is in a struggle with Trump’s appointees in the security, foreign policy, and intelligence agencies.
According to the new rules, journalists risk losing their Pentagon press credentials if they refuse to sign an agreement pledging to disclose only officially sanctioned information, as detailed in a memo obtained by The New York Times after it was circulated to media outlets last week.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, on the other hand, announced on his social media account that the policy stems from national security concerns and that journalists should follow the rules.
In response to a media inquiry, the Department of War issued a standard statement, with Chief Spokesperson Sean Parnell describing the guidelines as “basic, common-sense measures to safeguard sensitive information, national security, and the safety of Pentagon personnel”.
The main debate
This development at the Pentagon adds another chapter to the ongoing debate over the politicisation of Washington’s national security institutions.
Both Democratic and Republican politicians routinely accuse each other of politicising government agencies under the pretence of objectivity.
For instance, during his campaign, Trump frequently claimed the judiciary was politicised, arguing that the Justice Department’s investigations into him under the Biden administration were politically motivated.
Democrats, in turn, highlighted alleged cases of politicisation during Trump’s presidency.
Even in an established democracy, a degree of politicisation within bureaucratic institutions is unavoidable, and scholarly literature on the subject suggests that politicisation is not inherently detrimental.
While unlawful direct intervention is clearly problematic, a bureaucracy’s alignment with the priorities of an elected government does not automatically violate democratic norms, as it allows faster decision-making and the implementation of a political agenda.
After all, elected officials are expected to reflect their constituents’ concerns in public policy.
That said, politicisation comes with trade-offs.
On one hand, bureaucrats may exhibit bias on certain topics by supplying information that politicians prefer to see.
On the other hand, in a field like national security, where confidentiality and sharing private information are essential, harmony among like-minded actors is a vital part of conducting routine operations.
The central challenge, therefore, lies in striking a balance between these competing considerations.
Trump administration, bureaucracy, and media
Leaks of information from bureaucratic institutions to the media were a frequent issue, particularly during Trump's first term as president.
The mainstream media often framed such leaks as a form of “internal resistance” against the Trump administration, establishing a counterbalance to Trump's so-called egregious attitudes.
However, this very framing can itself be interpreted as part of a political campaign aimed at undermining Trump’s legitimacy as a president.
An alternative interpretation is that these actions represent the bureaucracy's political response to the Trump administration, disguised as neutrality.
It is inaccurate to presume that the American security apparatus was apolitical before Trump, and the notion that politicisation is exclusive to his era is not a convincing explanation.
A similar dynamic persists into Trump's second term. The most obvious example is the leak of the operational plans targeting the Houthis by a journalist in a chat group created by Mike Waltz, then Trump’s national security advisor.
Pete Hegseth was the person who shared the operational plans with other high-ranking Trump administration officials in that chat on a typical cell phone application.
Besides these examples, it's also worth noting the ongoing debate surrounding Intelligence Community Director Tulsi Gabbard regarding staff reductions within intelligence agencies.
Since assuming the post, Hegseth has been a figure whose suitability for the position has been a subject of debate, given his past military career and his statements about service members.
Looking at his performance as the Secretary of War, he has made a few radical changes, other than symbolic rebranding of the Department of Defense as the Department of War.
While these corporate identity changes resonate in domestic politics, his ability to direct Pentagon policies remains questionable.
The Pentagon, for example, has not made any major shifts in its stance on either Ukraine or Syria.
Despite Trump’s personal efforts to alter these stances, Hegseth's effectiveness in shaping these policy changes remains limited.
Ultimately, rebranding and confrontations with the press appear to be the most viable paths through which Hegseth can demonstrate that he makes a difference.
Put differently, given that he is unable to create major changes in the Pentagon's position on hard-core policy issues, he is focusing on issues that are likely to appeal to his support base.
To conclude, the Pentagon’s new rules reflect a broader struggle over the boundaries between security and press freedom. Both the Trump administration and the security bureaucracy are trying to assert control over the narrative by using the press as a tool.
This recent episode between the media and Hegseth signifies yet another front in the US’ ongoing political struggles, and how such incidents will develop during Trump’s second term remains to be seen.
