“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” — Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson believed in a free press. But he didn’t believe reporters should be treated like royalty. He supported their right to speak freely, not their right to special treatment. Today, some press groups act like they deserve both.
That was clear in a recent story from Newsmax (May 23, 2025). The article described how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is changing the way reporters work inside the Pentagon. He’s limiting where they can go and rebalancing office space to allow more diverse voices — including conservative outlets.
The Pentagon Press Association (PPA) was not happy. They called Hegseth’s moves an attack on the press.
But let’s take a closer look. Was this really about press freedom? Or was it about protecting privileges that certain media outlets have enjoyed for years?
What the First Amendment Really Says
The First Amendment protects freedom of the press. But it doesn’t say the government must give reporters special access or special treatment.
“Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”
This means the government can’t stop someone from publishing something. It doesn’t mean every reporter gets a front-row seat at the Pentagon or the White House.
The Supreme Court has made this clear. In Houchins v. KQED (1978), the Court said the press doesn’t get more access than the average citizen. In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the Court ruled that reporters don’t get to ignore subpoenas just because they’re in the media.
In simple terms: the First Amendment protects your right to write. It doesn’t guarantee you a key to every door in Washington.
Who Is the PPA Really Fighting For?
The Pentagon Press Association (and the similar White House Correspondents’ Association) represent journalists from big, well-known media outlets. These groups claim they’re defending press freedom, but they often act like they’re defending their own club.
For decades, the same outlets — mostly left-leaning — have had top access. They’re the ones in the briefing rooms, with the offices, with the questions at press conferences. When that setup is challenged, they cry foul.
But ask yourself: Why is it unfair to include more voices? Isn’t it more fair to let everyone have a chance — not just the same few?
What Hegseth Is Really Doing
Secretary Hegseth isn’t banning reporters. He’s not shutting down news stories. He’s simply changing the rules to stop one group from dominating the press room.
He’s adding security controls. He’s asking all reporters to follow the same rules. And he’s making room for voices that have often been kept out — like One America News and the New York Post.
That’s not censorship. That’s fairness.
The Founders Didn’t Trust the Press to Be Neutral
The Founding Fathers wanted a free press — but not a fancy one. They didn’t picture reporters in tuxedos at Washington parties. They imagined scrappy printers and pamphlet writers shouting over each other in the town square.
They wanted debate, not silence. They wanted many voices, not just a few approved ones.
Today’s press associations don’t look like that. They look like gatekeepers, deciding who gets to speak and who doesn’t. That’s the opposite of what the First Amendment is about.
Questions We Should Be Asking
The real issue isn’t “Is Hegseth silencing the press?” He’s not.
The real questions are:
Who gets to decide who’s in the press corps?
Why do the same people always get the best seats?
Why is adding new voices seen as a threat?
If the PPA and WHCA truly cared about freedom, they’d welcome more voices — not fight to keep their monopoly.
Final Thought: Don’t Confuse Power with Principle
A free press is about truth, not status.
Secretary Hegseth is doing something brave: calling out a broken system and offering a better one. He’s reminding everyone that the First Amendment protects speech — not special treatment.
If the big press clubs don’t want to be treated like special interest groups, maybe they should stop acting like one.
