'If You Can Keep It': The Pentagon And The Press

0:07Every Monday, we check in on the health of our democracy through our series, If You Can Keep It. Today, we focus on the Pentagon's changing and volatile relationship with the press. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to tightly control the news that comes out of the Pentagon, even as he deals with the fallout over strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific. In October, nearly all mainstream outlets left the Pentagon after refusing to comply with restrictive new rules on their work. The exodus included the Associated Press, NPR, and the New York Times, along with conservative outlets like Newsmax and Fox News Channel.

0:44Two weeks ago, the Pentagon held its first press conference with a new group of hand-picked press outlets, now mostly made up of right-wing outlets and Trump allies, including former Republican Representative Matt Gaetz and right-wing media influencer Laura Loomer. We're not going to beg these old gatekeepers to come back, and we're not rebuilding a broken model just to appease them. Instead, we're welcoming new media outlets that actually reach Americans, ask real questions, and don't pursue a biased agenda. That was Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson. Now the New York Times is suing the Pentagon over violating the First Amendment rights of journalists.

1:22As more questions arise over the Venezuela boat strikes and the contentious relationship between the Trump administration and the press heats up, what does the absence of traditional press at the Pentagon mean for the accountability of the U.S. military, press freedom, and our democracy? I'm Jen White, here with Todd Zwillick, and you're listening to the 1A Podcast. We get to all that and more right after this short break. Stay with us.

1:49Let's get into the conversation and meet our guests. Nancy Youssef is a staff writer at The Atlantic, covering national security and the Defense Department. Nancy, always great to talk with you. Great to be here. Thank you. Also with us is Phil Stewart, a military affairs and intelligence correspondent at Reuters. He's also a board member at the Pentagon Press Association. Phil, thanks for joining us. Thank you. And Colonel David LaPan is a retired Marine and former Pentagon spokesman. He also served as press secretary at the Department of Homeland Security under the first Trump administration.

2:19Dave, welcome to 1A. Welcome. Thank you. Nancy and Phil, you were both part of the Pentagon exodus of at least 30 news organizations. Nancy, remind us of the new rules that were nearly unanimously rejected by the traditional press. So let me start with what the rules used to be. It was a one-page document that we had to sign to have a press badge, and it was really about things like photography and where we could go, parking, things of that sort. And in the fall, the administration put forward a new set of rules that ended up being 21 pages in all. And the two key provisions in it were that we could not publish information that was not authorized by the department, And the publication of information, even unclassified information, that the Pentagon deemed not publishable could be sort of categorized as a potential national security threat.

3:10And so those were the two key provisions that for our press corps we couldn't tolerate because the key part of our job is the ability to provide information to the American public. And in October, that was sort of the deadline for when we had to sort of say whether we were on board or not. Our press, many members of our press corps said that we would not sign those as a condition to have a Pentagon badge and collectively walked out. And I should note that throughout that time and every week since, we've seen that press corps break news on the Pentagon beat. So while we're not in the building, I think you've continued to see tremendous journalism from them, including the Washington Post story that led to sort of a reexamination of the September 2nd strikes on Venezuela, the boat outside of Venezuela.

3:56And we're going to talk a lot more about the coverage that continues despite the press corps not being in the building. The coverage has not let up, and we're going to talk more about that. Phil, Nancy mentioned one important new provision in that 21-page document that you needed basically sign-off from the Pentagon leadership on stories that you wouldn't transmit stories that the Pentagon leadership deemed a threat to national security. What does that mean potentially for the journalism that you would do every day out of the Pentagon and who controls the message? Well, I think there's two components to that question that really need to be explained to the American public.

4:34The first part is, of course, it's not the job of journalists to simply regurgitate talking points from spokespeople. If journalists did that, we would be living in a society of basically state-run media. And the second point that I would make is that the concern that the Pentagon Press Association had with this document really came down to some of the language in it that talked about solicitation of unauthorized information for release. And so that language in there was quite troubling to the Pentagon Press Association's counsel, to the attorney that the Pentagon Press Association has secured, to review this for legal risks because it appeared to set up some sort of a case for criminal prosecution.

5:23And so, you know, there were two real problems here, and they both were so problematic that, again, conservative outlets, you know, Reuters is right down the middle as you can get. Everyone had to reject these because they were just too problematic. Sorry, solicitation of information you mentioned, that's asking questions, right? That is correct. Okay. Yeah. Well, we got this from John, who's a former Homeland Security employee. Trump controlling her reports from the Pentagon is just one way he is trying to limit any negative, truthful coverage of his administration. The administration has done the same thing at the White House by giving priority to right-wing outlets and disallowing the Associated Press access.

6:04These assaults on freedom of the press is just one of his attacks on a key pillar of our democracy and endanger us all. I mean, David, as a former spokesperson for the Pentagon, what were your thoughts when you saw these new rules? First of all, I was sad as somebody had worked at the Pentagon in these various roles as a spokesperson. Disgusted would be a good way to describe it. And angry that it was going to put the men and women who serve in the military in uniform at a disadvantage because the Pentagon press is our outlet to provide information. both in peacetime and in war. We count on the media, not just those who have badges and worked in the Pentagon, but media writ large to tell the truth about what was happening to sons and daughters that the American people sent us.

7:01How are their taxpayer dollars are being used to fund the department? So I think that it's been damaging both to the democracy and specifically to our military. How do you think about that in the context of this new press corps that's been shaped? So first, I would push back on the notion that it's a press corps. It's ironic that the spokesperson at the Pentagon talked about this new group not having any bias. It's absolutely false. It's the exact opposite. These are activists, not reporters. And to Phil's point, as a spokesperson, I didn't expect reporters to just regurgitate what I said to them, that they were going to go out and do their jobs.

7:50Well, I note that we did reach out to the Pentagon to be a part of this conversation or to send a statement. They referred us to remarks made by Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson during our press briefing to the new credentialed media. And we heard some of that at the top, but here's more from an exchange with a member of the new, well, press corps. We're receiving more readouts of the Secretary of War's meetings with the president yesterday, much like the State Department in the White House, that provide readouts and scheduling and things like that. Will we be receiving more of those? Absolutely.

8:20In the interest, as I said in my opening, in the interest of transparency, we want to make sure that you all are informed. That's a commitment we take seriously. Obviously, we're slightly different than other agencies in that we have national security and operational concerns. But we will tell you as much as we can because we want the American public to know all the incredible things that our warfighters are doing every single day and all the amazing initiatives the secretary is pursuing here at the Department of War. Again, that was the press secretary at the Pentagon, Kingsley Wilson. Dave, that has always been the case that the Pentagon can't tell the press everything.

8:53thing. We all know, or at least have a sense of what classified information is, what war plans are. But can you explain your experience of what that relationship was like with the press, having some information you can faithfully relay, some that you can't? And also part of your job is spinning the administration's message. That's part of the job. How did you balance those things when you were in the job? So for me, the North Star was always telling the truth. And when there were times that I couldn't tell the truth because it was classified or for whatever reason, protecting personal privacy, things like that.

9:27I explained why, right? I think most people, the American public would understand as long as they believe you, that you have credibility. I don't think this current administration and this Pentagon has that credibility. Did you ever lie from the podium? No. Never once? Never once. As you said, well, let me back up a second. in the role at the Pentagon, I was a uniformed military officer. And so it was not my role to defend administration policy. The civilian, my civilian counterparts were doing that. So I handled the operational and those things. Now, later when I went to the Department of Homeland Security, I was no longer in uniform, but I still, you know, held to that ethos of telling the truth.

10:13And if I couldn't tell the truth for whatever reason, I explained why. Go ahead. No, I just wanted to jump in because I was actually at the Pentagon when Colonel Lepan, then Colonel Lepan, was in that job. And we were just talking before the show about one case that was really memorable to me. After the bin Laden raid, there was a crash of a helicopter and Colonel Lepan disclosed that the Pakistanis had given the Chinese access to that crash site only because it was, you know, information that he had, and he felt obligated to release it to the public if asked. And that was a case of very sensitive information, but that he felt an obligation to release, and that it's hard to imagine happening right now.

11:00Coming up, how the new Pentagon press corps is covering a story that's dominated headlines for weeks now, the Venezuelan boat strikes. We'll be right back.

11:13Let's get back into the conversation with these messages we got from you. The exclusion of the mainstream media from Pentagon briefings is another nail in the coffin of democracy. Regarding the Pentagon's latest decisions and the press corps, it's just more of the same. Everything about this Project 2025 Trump administration is corrupt. So, Nancy, even before these new rules went into effect, what was it like covering the Defense Department under Hexeth's leadership? I'm so glad you asked because it wasn't sort of a binary thing where we went from having information to not when we left the building.

11:54In the run-up to this, it was much harder to get information, basic information that we had access to previously. So, for example, these strikes off the shores of Venezuela started September 2nd. We were kicked out October 15th. There was never a briefing by a military officer about why this was happening, what was the threat, what was the end state that we were trying to achieve. Really basic information. We couldn't get it. And more than that, there was an increased climate of fear from senior military officers to engage with us because there were threats of being polygraphed for potential suspicion of being a leaker, things of that sort.

12:33So it was already much, much harder to get information. What the Pentagon access allowed us was just a little bit more opening up the aperture, ever so much more to maybe, I don't know, come across somebody in the hallway or talk to a spokesman face-to-face who might not feel comfortable engaging over the phone. But it was already much harder to get information, and you saw that in how these strikes on the boats off the shores of Venezuela was covered. Well, Phil, I want you to focus in for a moment for us on that chilling effect inside the Pentagon. If there is an increased culture of fear that people think, you know, I can't speak to a reporter, even if I have information that I think the American public should know about, how does that reshape the way you have to approach a reporting?

13:22Well, you know, I'm thankful that I've been covering the Pentagon since 2009 and that I know so many people that I can do this without having to be physically in the building. but I would offer this anecdote on the day that the journalist had to leave. And it wasn't that we turned in our badges voluntarily. They were confiscated. They were confiscated. You know, there was no choice really. Either you signed it or they were confiscated. But on the day that we were turning in our badges, you know, a four-star general approached me and a couple of colleagues in the hallway and, you know, without saying so, you know, appeared to express regret privately for what was going on.

14:01And it was this moment where, you know, you'd kind of hope that they would do something more publicly or do something to stop it. But at the same time, you had to respect, you know, the outreach. And it's those kind of conversations that can happen now because you won't be able to see them face to face and in the building during operations that might happen during the day. And it's problematic. Can you guys connect the dots between some of the events that you've mentioned? Nancy, you mentioned the deadline was October 15th. You were out of there. It started in September. We now know that the boat strikes in Venezuela started infamously now on September 2nd.

14:41But also, as we've talked about on 1A, the judge advocates general at the Pentagon were fired, the top legal advice around this time. The message was managed. Signalgate back in March when Secretary Pete Hegseth fell under scrutiny for his signal messages. We all know that story. Can you connect the dots for the information climate in the Pentagon? I mean, you guys were kicked out just as the boat strikes were ramping up, just as the Pentagon had a story that they wanted to manage very tightly. And now, in retrospect, we can see why. I mean, I would just start by saying that we knew this was coming, right?

15:18We knew back in December, I wrote a story saying that the purge was on its way and that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others who were associated with the previous chairman, Mark Milley, were going to get fired by this incoming administration. And it was a goal that was transparent to those who were doing reporting vigorously early on. And when they came in and this purge started, I think a lot of folks in the Pentagon realized this was real. And the chilling effect was pretty quick, I'll be honest. They became quite concerned about getting on the wrong side of an administration or appearing political, which is what they really don't want to do.

15:58I mean, U.S. uniformed military are quite concerned about saying anything that could be perceived as being political. So even if you're asking something operational, you know, like what unit carried out, you know, the strike on a boat, you know, if they tell, you know, you and you're not seen as being in favor of the administration, perhaps that could be seen as being political and then that could put them out of favor with the... So there's this whole cascade of impacts. Can I offer my own anecdote to Phil's point? I've been covering the building on and off since 2007. And in that period between January and our eviction, I had commanders contact me by proxy, people I'd known for decades.

16:43In some cases, I'd seen them in Iraq or Afghanistan in the battlefield. I'd known their families or certainly met them. And they would call me and say, listen, Nancy, don't call me. Don't call me. And I'm not talking, don't call me in any way, shape, or form out of fear of what could happen. And I don't talk to them for that reason. Like that's sort of the, that's what it felt like. And spokesman came up to me and said, I'm worried about what's going to happen if I have reporters' numbers in my phone. things we hadn't heard before um and so people felt like they were being brave by telling us things that used to be readily available um people were going on background or off the record because they wanted us in some cases to know but didn't want to be tied to it um people are afraid to talk on their office phones sometimes because they ask well maybe it's recorded like and and And to Phil's point, we all saw this coming.

17:42I have to tell you, throughout the year, I kept going to the Pentagon. And in the back of my mind, I think, I don't know how much longer I'll be able to come here. Because first it started with we couldn't go into certain hallways. Like you could sort of feel things close in. Certain journalists were kicked out of their booths or certain journalists were kicked out of their desks. Like you could feel the room closing in. And so in some ways we knew this was coming, but it didn't make it any less painful because part of what's made covering the Pentagon so great is that you can use multiple senses to cover it.

18:15You don't just have to go on the phone. You can look at people's faces. You can see in the parking lot if their car is still there after 6 and think, okay, maybe something's happening. You lose all these sort of senses that made the reporting so rich and allowed us to make the Pentagon more tangible to the American public. Dave, I'd love your perspective on the importance of having people like Nancy and Phil in the building. Thanks for that question. I was looking for an opportunity to jump in as the conversation was going on. Nancy talked about the strikes going on and no briefings. I mean, one of the values for us, you know, as part of the Pentagon leadership, both civilian and military, was having news reporters right there on hand that could be called at a moment's notice.

19:06Because operations happen around the world at all hours. And in normal times, you know, when I was there, and I should point out too that the time that I spend in various positions at the Pentagon spanned both Democratic and Republican administrations. You know, I was there from 2000, 2003 under the Bush administration, started the war in Iraq, started the war in Afghanistan, the 9-11 attacks. There was a lot going on. And having Pentagon reporters there to be able to tell that story, we could call a briefing in 10 minutes. Phil alluded to the story about the information that I talked about after the bin Laden raid.

19:45I would do daily gaggles Monday through Friday every day in my office with Pentagon Press. A gaggle, for those who don't know, is an on-the-record-but-off-camera session. And I used to joke that it was stump the chump because they could ask me anything. I had to be prepared to talk about Venezuela and Afghanistan and Somalia and anything that we were doing around the world. So as Nancy talked about that interpersonal, you know, being able to see people, being able to read body language, being able to develop those relationships. But for the Pentagon, again, the value of having reporters there that understood.

20:24I'm a little biased given the positions that I've had, but I'd have to say that the Pentagon press corps, as it exists previously, not what's happening today, is one of the most knowledgeable professional groups of journalists in the entire world. And that's part of the reason that we were one of the only places in the entire world that had reporters resident in our headquarters. That doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. It's because we had that level of trust and we wanted those reporters there to be able to tell the story. We got this question from Jay in Oklahoma who says, does the Pentagon's new policy only refer to information from the Pentagon or any information about the U.S.

21:05military from sources outside of the Pentagon. Phil, is that clear? That policy is loaded with problematic language. And I would say that it would apply to all information related to U.S. military operations, the way that the Pentagon Press Association read it. So a clamp down on? All information related to the U.S. military would have been covered by that policy. Well, Nancy, as we mentioned, the Pentagon press corps was quickly replaced, or at least their seats were filled. I'll say that. The White House says they've welcomed what they call new media of 70 independent people, bloggers, social media influencers, former member of Congress.

21:53Matt Gaetz was in a briefing the other day, as we mentioned. What do we know about who makes up what's being called the new press corps at the Pentagon? Who are they? Well, it's as you know, there are a lot of, quote unquote, new media. Many don't have journalism experience. Many are not based in Washington. I think the more prominent names that you would see among them is Laura Loomer and Matt Gaetz, as you mentioned, the former representative who now works for One American News. The other thing is that they have voiced a lot of their views politically and on the eviction and our press corps.

22:28So it's been surprising to me how much of their coverage has they've been about the fact that they're there rather than about military operations. That's sort of jumped out to me. If you watch that week that they were here, a lot of them were sort of getting to know the building and getting to know the military. You didn't see a sort of collection of people who would spend a lot of time around the military. And so I personally was struck by how sort of awestruck they were about being in the building. And in some cases, they have pointed out their loyalty to the administration, their affiliation with members of the administration.

23:10Now, having said all that, I think we also saw instances in that first press conference of those who had questions and were prepared to challenge the administration on policies. This is not a press corps that is uniformly sort of on the side of the administration. There were questions about Somalia. Matt Gaetz had a session with the chief of staff and pushed back very aggressively on funding for the F-35. And so it's not a monolith, but it's more, I would say, opinionated, less experienced around the military, and not a guaranteed sort of position in terms of how they're going to cover the Pentagon.

23:55The boat strike story is still unfolding, and it's something Nancy, both you and Phil, are covering. Phil, what has it been like reporting on that story from outside the Pentagon? Well, that's interesting you ask that. I learned, I think, two days after the eviction of the credentialed media that there was a strike that had survivors. And I learned this from someone who reached out to me, and it was pretty surprising. So I put out an alert, and I put out my story, and that was all without any kind of consensual information from the Pentagon. Actually, I put in a request for comment, and it was not responded to.

24:39So we are all still breaking stories. And, you know, that particular piece, my colleague, Idris Ali, and I, Idris has been on the show. We followed up with a story about the survivors then being transferred, an exclusive about them being transferred to a warship, and then another exclusive about them being repatriated back to the countries, neither of which were Venezuela. And so, you know, we're— And neither of which were the United States to be charged. Right, right. And so, you know, we're still breaking news collectively on these operations and on the Pentagon. But it's happening in a much different way, and it's happening without responses from the Pentagon about basic information.

25:25And I'm grateful, again, that I have so many years covering the Pentagon to be sure about what I'm publishing before I do because the credibility of my news organization and other news organizations is very important. We'll speak a little bit more about one of the other stories playing out right now, Signalgate. But, Dave, you have experience working under the first Trump administration, under then the Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, but you resigned as press secretary. What led you to that decision? So the mention of General John Kelly, he and I had served in the Marine Corps together for many years, so we knew one another very well.

26:03When he was nominated to become the Secretary of Homeland Security, he reached out to me, and he asked me to come work for him. And I couldn't say no. I had my doubts about the administration, but I knew that John Kelly would never either ask me or expect me to compromise my principles, my integrity, or my reputation. and that was the work that I did while he was the secretary. When he left to move to the White House, that relationship was going to be gone. I didn't know who was going to come in as the secretary. I stayed for a little while and worked for the acting secretary, Elaine Duke, but I resigned because I no longer could be confident that I wasn't going to be asked to do things to attack the press, to talk about fake news, and to lie.

26:52We have to take a quick break, but still to come, the New York Times hits the Pentagon with a lawsuit over its First Amendment rights. That's in just a moment.