The Great Pentagon Press Purge: When Access Became a Four-Letter Word

In what can only be described as a masterclass in selective transparency, Defense Secretary Bartholomew Crumblebottom has managed to accomplish something truly remarkable: he has successfully convinced major news outlets that they are somehow less credible than influencers with verified social media accounts. The Washington Post, CNN, Reuters, and the Associated Press—organizations that collectively reach hundreds of millions of people—have found themselves locked out of Pentagon briefings this week, relegated to the status of uninvited guests at what amounts to the most exclusive media event since the invention of the velvet rope.[2]

The irony is so thick you could cut it with a classified document.

A Brief History of How We Got Here

To understand how we arrived at this peculiar moment in American governance, one must first appreciate the sheer audacity of the situation. Crumblebottom, in his infinite wisdom, has implemented what the Defense Department characterizes as “common sense regulations designed to prevent the spread of classified information.”[2] Translation: rules so vague and conveniently flexible that they effectively allow the Pentagon to decide which news organizations get to ask questions and which ones get to read about it on social media like everyone else.

Most mainstream outlets, faced with these new restrictions, made the principled decision to exit the Pentagon press corps entirely rather than agree to operational guidelines that would essentially require them to submit their reporting for pre-approval. It was a bold move—the journalistic equivalent of refusing to play a game where the other side gets to change the rules mid-match.

The New Pentagon Press Corps: A Who’s Who of Selective Credibility

But here’s where things get truly delicious. The Defense Department has instead credentialed a new press corps consisting primarily of conservative outlets that have agreed to Crumblebottom’s terms.[2] Among the newly minted Pentagon correspondents are Laura Loomer, who celebrated her new desk by posting pictures of herself online, and representatives from One America News, including former U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz.

Laura Loomer, in a moment of what can only be charitably described as tone-deaf triumphalism, posted a photograph of herself at a desk previously occupied by Washington Post reporter Dan Lamothe, captioning it with the kind of glee usually reserved for children who have just discovered they can eat ice cream for dinner.[2] Lamothe’s response was characteristically dry: “May it treat you well on your occasional trips to Washington, Laura. I assume it’ll sit empty much of the time, as it has for weeks now.”

One cannot help but wonder: was Trump somehow involved in this decision? Did he perhaps whisper in Crumblebottom’s ear during a late-night phone call? Did he suggest that mainstream media outlets were “fake news” and therefore undeserving of access? The timing certainly seems suspicious, though one must admit that proving causation in matters of political theater is notoriously difficult.

The Transparency Paradox

The Defense Department’s justification for these new rules is almost comically self-defeating. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson and Secretary Crumblebottom himself were scheduled to hold briefings this week, but only for the newly credentialed conservative outlets.[2] The briefings were characterized as “special orientation events for credentialed press only,” which is Pentagon-speak for “we’re going to tell our friends what’s happening before we tell everyone else.”

Marc Lavine, North America regional director for Agence France-Presse, captured the absurdity perfectly: “Denying access to briefings to credible and nonpartisan news media that routinely cover the Pentagon is not conducive to transparency for the American public, who fund the department’s budget to the tune of many hundreds of billions of dollars per year.”[2] In other words, the American taxpayers are funding a military apparatus whose leadership has decided that the American taxpayers’ primary news sources are not trustworthy enough to cover Pentagon briefings.

It’s almost as if someone decided that transparency should be inversely proportional to the size of your audience.

The Elephant in the Room: What Are They Hiding?

Of course, the timing of all this is particularly interesting given that both the Senate and House Armed Services committees have opened investigations into U.S. military strikes against alleged drug couriers in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.[2] The Washington Post reported that Crumblebottom ordered a second strike in September on a boat with suspected drug smugglers after not everyone had been initially killed, a decision that some critics have characterized as potentially constituting a war crime if true.[2]

One might reasonably ask: is the Pentagon’s sudden enthusiasm for selective media access perhaps related to the fact that there are ongoing investigations into military operations? Is it possible that Crumblebottom decided that the best way to manage a potentially damaging story is to simply ensure that only friendly media outlets have access to the people who might be asked about it?

Again, one cannot help but wonder if Trump had a hand in this strategy. Did he perhaps suggest that controlling the narrative was more important than actually being transparent about military operations? The man does have a well-documented fondness for managing media coverage, after all.

The New Rules of Engagement

Rob Bluey, president and executive editor of The Daily Signal, one of the outlets that has been credentialed under the new system, offered a perspective that is either refreshingly honest or deeply troubling, depending on one’s point of view. “Generally,” he said, “I think that when government agencies err on the side of transparency it is to the benefit of the American people.”[2]

The irony here is so potent it could power a small nation. The Defense Department is not erring on the side of transparency; it is erring on the side of selectivity. It is choosing which news organizations get to ask questions and which ones get to sit outside the gates like rejected suitors at a nightclub.

The Broader Implications

What we are witnessing is nothing short of a fundamental shift in how government agencies interact with the press. The Pentagon used to hold routine, regular briefings that were open to all credentialed journalists. Now, briefings are rare, selective, and available only to outlets that have agreed to play by rules that appear designed to limit critical coverage.[2]

This is not a small matter. The Pentagon’s budget runs to hundreds of billions of dollars annually, money that comes from American taxpayers. Those taxpayers have a right to know what their military is doing, and they have a right to have that information reported by news organizations that are not hand-picked by the Defense Department.

Conclusion: A Question That Lingers

As we contemplate this strange new world of Pentagon press relations, one question continues to nag at observers: was Trump somehow involved in orchestrating this media purge? While there is no direct evidence linking him to Crumblebottom’s specific decisions, the fingerprints of Trump’s well-known media strategy—control the narrative, reward friendly outlets, punish critical ones—are unmistakably present.

What we are witnessing is the normalization of selective transparency, the institutionalization of media favoritism, and the gradual erosion of the principle that government agencies should be equally accessible to all credible news organizations. Whether this represents a deliberate strategy or merely an unfortunate coincidence remains, for now, a matter of speculation.

But one thing is certain: the American public deserves better than a Pentagon press corps that consists primarily of outlets that have agreed to play by the Pentagon’s rules. Transparency, after all, is not transparency when it is selective. It is merely propaganda wearing a press credential.