On October 15, 2025, dozens of journalists from major news organizations, including The New York Times, Fox News, The Washington Post, CNN, and Reuters, turned in their Pentagon press credentials and walked out together.
Their reason?
New rules from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that would make them legally vulnerable for reporting information not pre-approved by the government β raising concerns about the public's right to know how government institutions, including the military, operate in our name. [1]
It's a scene that would have alarmed the Founders: the military demanding control over what the press can seek, obtain, and publish, even when it's unclassified information.
For those of us who turn to history to make sense of the present, moments like this remind us that democracy depends on an informed citizenry, regardless of political persuasion.
The last time the United States witnessed such a dramatic standoff between the government and the press was during the Sedition Act of 1798.
β
πΌοΈ The Big Picture
What's Happening: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a 21-page policy requiring Pentagon reporters to pledge not to "solicit" or publish any unauthorized information--classified or unclassified--without explicit government approval. Journalists who violate these rules could lose their credentials and face potential prosecution.
Nearly every major news organization, spanning the political spectrumβfrom conservative outlets like Fox News and Newsmax to legacy publications like The Associated Press and The New York Timesβrefused to sign.
On October 15, 2025, approximately 40-50 journalists handed in their badges and cleared out their workspaces, some of which they'd occupied for decades. As veteran NPR reporter Tom Bowman wrote when he turned in his own press pass, "Signing that document would make us stenographers parroting press releases, not watchdogs holding government officials accountable."
This isn't an isolated incident. In February 2025, the Pentagon evicted several major news organizations from their dedicated workspaces. In May, new rules banned reporters from accessing large portions of the Pentagon without escorts. In September, Hegeth announced the pledge requirement. Each restriction tightened government control over what Americans can know about their military. [2]
β οΈ Why It Matters: For the first time since the Eisenhower administration, no major American television network or publication has a permanent presence inside the Pentagon. The walkout represents a rare moment of unity across the media landscape, with journalists arguing that the policy criminalizes routine newsgathering and violates First Amendment protections. The Pentagon Press Association called it "a dark day for press freedom."
But here's what makes this moment particularly significant: the system's checks and balances aren't constraining this action. President Trump endorsed Hegseth's restrictions, arguing that the press has sometimes been unfair to government officials. Members of Congress, meanwhile, have not weighed in publicly. Only the journalists are pushing back against restrictions on information about an agency that makes life-and-death decisions and spends nearly a trillion dollars of public money annually. Reporter Tom Bowman asked, "How will the American people find out what is being done at the Pentagon in their name, with their hard-earned tax dollars, and, more importantly, the decisions that may put our sons and daughters in harm's way?" [3]
π What History Reveals: The Founders feared precisely this scenario: Government officials controlling what citizens can know about those who wield power in their name.
The Founders designed the First Amendment as a check on government authority, understanding that democracy dies in darkness.
The tension between government secrecy and press freedom is as old as the Republic itself. What would the Founders have made of government officials deciding what citizens can know about national defense?
β
π Historical Deep Dive
The Long Shadow of Government Control
The Founders understood that government control of information posed a serious threat to the democracy they built.
From their experiences during the Imperial Crisis (1763-1775), they understood that when those in power decide what the public can know, liberty is at risk. This is why they included Freedom of the Press in the Constitution's First Amendment and why they designed it as one of the key checks on federal power.
The Founders structured the U.S. Constitution to separate the powers of government among three branches, as shown in Articles I, II, and III.
Article 1, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
β βArticle 2, Section 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. β βArticle 3, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuation in Office.
These vesting clauses work with the Founders' checks and balances (veto, impeachment, advice and consent, judicial review) to create the framework for separation of government powers.
But what happens when the president endorses restrictions, Congress stays silent, and only journalists resist?
This is precisely the kind of concentrated power the Founders designed our constitutional system of government to prevent.
β
β
Context: The Zenger Trial (1735)
Before the United States existed, British Colonists understood a free press as essential to liberty.
In 1735, New York printer and newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger faced seditious libel for publishing articles in his New-York Weekly Journal that criticized New York governor William Cosby as being tyrannical and violating the colonists' rights.
Under English common law (which applied to the British North American colonies), it was illegal to criticize the government or its officials. According to a 1606 English court decision, the truth was no defense; libels against public persons were viewed as criminal, and therefore, the truth of the matter was no defense. [4]
Governor Cosby tried to silence Zenger and his newspaper. He brought charges against Zenger, but two grand juries refused to indict him. Cosby then arrested and imprisoned Zenger for nine months, and attempted to burn all copies of his New-York Weekly Journal.
At Zenger's trial, Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton made a revolutionary argument in Zenger's defense: The truth should be a defense against libel charges, and a jury--not a judge--should decide the case.
Chief Justice James DeLancey presided over the case and instructed the jury to convict Zenger. The jury deliberated quickly and returned a not-guilty verdict.
The Zenger case did not establish legal precedent, but it did demonstrate the principle that Americans would not tolerate government control of the press.
Founder Gouverneur Morris later declared the Zenger trial was "the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America." [5]
β
James Madison by John Vanderlyn, 1816
The Founders' Vision: Freedom of the Press as Democracy's Guardian
Freedom of the press was fundamental to James Madison and his draft Bill of Rights (1789).
Madison's original draft called the press "one of the great bulwarks of liberty" and declared that the freedom of the press "shall be inviolable." [6]
Madison and his fellow Founders understood the United States needed an independent press to serve as a check on government power. During the ratification debates over the U.S. Constitution, several states refused to ratify the new Constitution without explicit press protections.
For example, Virginia's Declaration of Rights declared "the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States." Virginia refused to ratify the Constitution without a promise that such rights would be delineated and protected in a bill of rights. Their message was clear: Virginians did not want the federal government to have any power to restrict the press or what it could publish. [7]
The First Amendment's freedom of the press clause embodied the Founders' belief that democracy required citizens to have access to information about their government, especially information that officials might prefer to hide. As Madison later wrote, the freedom to examine public officials and their actions was "the only effectual guardian of every other right." [8]
β
When the Founders Failed Their Own Principles: The Sedition Act of 1798
Seven years after ratifying the First Amendment, the federal government violated it.
In 1798, amid tensions with France and fears of foreign influence, President John Adams signed the Sedition Act into law.
The Sedition Act made it illegal to publish "false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government or president with an intent to defame them or bring them "into contempt or disrepute." [9]
There are striking parallels between the Sedition Act of 1798 and today's Pentagon policy.
Like Secretary Hegseth's rules, the Sedition Act targeted journalists for reporting information that embarrassed or criticized the government. Like today, officials in 1798 justified their restrictions on the press by invoking national security and claiming they were protecting the nation from dangerous information.
The Adams administration prosecuted at least 17 people under the Sedition Act, securing 10 convictions.
The targets?
Primarily, newspaper editors who criticized Federalist policies. The Adams administration arrested and tried Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, for his critical reporting in his Philadelphia-based Aurora newspaper. [10]
The Adams administration prosecuted Vermont Congressman Matthew Lyon for writing that President Adams had "an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice." The courts found Lyon guilty and imprisoned him for four months. [11]
The government fined Luther Baldwin of New Jersey $150 for drunkenly joking that he hoped a cannon would hit Adams "in the backside" during a parade. [12]
These prosecutions backfired. Rather than silencing dissent, the Sedition Act created martyrs for press freedom. Imprisoned editors ran campaigns from jail and won.
Thomas Jefferson, who opposed the Sedition Act, described the government prosecutions as "the reign of witches." James Madison denounced the act in his Virginia Resolutions (1798), arguing that it violated the First Amendment and posed a fundamental threat to republican government. [13]
The public agreed. The Sedition Act became deeply unpopular and contributed to John Adams' defeat in the 1800 presidential election. Jefferson allowed the law to expire on March 3, 1801, which was Adams's last day in office, and pardoned everyone convicted under it.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled the Sedition Act unconstitutional, Justice William Brennan later wrote that "the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." [14]
β
President John Adams by Gilbert Stuart, 1800
Why Today's Threat is Different: When Checks and Balances Fail
The Founders anticipated the risks of concentrated power and designed a system in which "ambition must be made to counteract ambition," as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51. The Founders counted on competing interests within the new federal government to check the overreach of other federal officers, including the president. [15]
The Sedition Act of 1798 ultimately failed because the Constitution's system of checks and balances worked: an opposition party fought the law, the public rejected it, and a new president reversed it. These institutional responses constrained this abuse of power.
Today's Pentagon restrictions present a more troubling case. Unlike the Sedition Act, which faced institutional and public resistance, the current restrictions face no meaningful constraints from the other branches of government.
The Executive Branch explicitly endorses the restrictions. President Trump called reporters "very disruptive" and suggested he would impose similar restrictions on the White House press corps. Rather than checking Hegseth's actions, Trump amplified them.
The Legislative Branch has remained silent. The Founders envisioned Congress as a check on the Executive Branch's power. Still, Congress has not held hearings, issued statements, or moved to constrain these new restrictions on information about military spending or operations. Both political parties have declined to exercise congressional oversight.
The Judicial Branch has not been invoked. As of October 16, 2025 β one day after the walkout β no lawsuits have challenged the constitutionality of the restrictions, meaning no court has weighed in on whether government officials can require journalists to pledge not to seek information.
The only check functioning is the press itself. The check the press has provided is to withdraw from the situation. It has no power to constrain the government's use of power.
Journalists have refused to sign the Pentagon's new pledge requirement, but doing so means they have lost access to the Pentagon. They can continue to write about the military and its operations from outside the Pentagon, but the government's restrictions on information flow remain in place.
The Founders feared this situation: executive power expanding without institutional resistance.
When Madison and his fellow Founders debated the Constitution, they worried about power concentrating in ways the people couldn't easily undo. They designed the United States' system of government to make power grabs difficult. But the system only works when the other branches of government exercise their power-check functions.
The Pentagon walkout thus represents more than a dispute about press credentials. It illuminates a systemic vulnerability: What happens when the constitutional system's checks and balances simply don't activate?
The 2025 Pentagon walkout echoes the resistance to the Sedition Act of 1798. In both cases, journalists and citizens understand that once government officials decide what information the public can access, democracy itself is at risk.
The difference is that in 1798, the system's checks and balances eventually worked. In 2025, they haven't activated.
β
π¬ Final Thought
Here's the question history is posing to us: If government officials can restrict what Americans learn about the world's most powerful military, how can citizens make informed decisions about the policies carried out in their name?
And if the only check on executive power is journalists walking away, what happens to democracy when the next group targeted by the government can't walk away?
β
π§ Go Deeper
Investigate the early American world of Freedom of the Press with these episodes of Ben Franklin's World:
The Common Causeβ βEpisode 144β Investigate how revolutionary leaders used the press as a tool to unite the American people during the fight for independence.
The Alien and Sedition Actsβ βEpisode 188β Explore one of the federal government's first attempts to restrict press freedom and criminalize political dissent.
Revolutionary Networksβ βEpisode 243β Discover how American revolutionaries used newspapers to develop and spread their ideas, coordinate their actions, and build support for independence.
Misinformation Nationβ βEpisode 375β Examine the history of the press and its involvement with misinformation in early America. A history that reveals how debates about truth and credibility are as old as the nation itself.
From Crisis to Peaceβ βEpisode 403β Consider the presidency of John Adams and the context for the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
β
π¬ What Do You Think?
The Founders designed a system where "ambition must counteract ambition."
When the government restricts information about the military but no branch of government pushes back, whose responsibility is it to defend press freedom β the courts, Congress, citizens, or the press itself?
You power this newsletterβand the effort to keep history in the headlines. π Support our work
β
P.S.
I had the opportunity to visit my undergraduate alma mater, Penn State, this week. The College of Liberal Arts invited me to join its Emerging Alumni Leaders board, where we're helping demonstrate that humanities education leads to strong career outcomes, and often higher long-term salaries than business degrees.
Like most U.S. institutions of higher education, Penn State is navigating significant challenges right now, including federal funding cuts and broader scrutiny of higher education.
Visiting Penn State reminded me why access to knowledge matters. Whether in a university classroom or a press briefing room, the ability to ask questions and share ideas freely sustains the democracy we all share.
We need scholars to share their knowledge with the world. This is why I work to ensure you have access to high-quality, accurate historical information.
When you understand our history and how historians know what they know, you can think critically about where we've been and where we should go, whether information flows freely or faces restrictions.
[4] For more history on the origins of sedition and seditious libel in English common law see: "Sedition and Seditious Libel," Net Lawman, December 2020, accessed October 16, 2025, https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/seditious-libel; For more about the history of Crown v. John Peter Zenger (1735) see, Historical Society of the New York Courts, "Crown v. John Peter Zenger, 1735," Historical Society of the New York Courts, accessed October 16, 2025, https://history.nycourts.gov/case/crown-v-zenger/.
[10] Richard N. Rosenfeld, American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns, The Suppressed History of Our Nation's Beginnings and the Heroic Newspaper That Tried to Report It, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997).
Richard N. Rosenfeld, American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns. The Suppressed History of Our Nation's Beginnings and the Heroic Newspaper that Tried to Report It, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997).
Affiliate Disclosure: Book links in this newsletter are affiliate links through Bookshop.org. If you purchase a book through these links, Ben Franklin's World earns a small commission at no extra cost to you. Your purchase helps support History Behind the Headlines and independent bookstores. Thank you for your support!