Dwindling press freedoms in the Land of the Free and elsewhere
Following the unprecedented expelling of journalists from the Pentagon recently, Newcastle graduate and The National journalist Thomas Watkins (BA Psychology, 1998) deep dives into the changing relationship between politics and press.
12 November 2025
In October, leading US news outlets rejected a new Pentagon policy that stated journalists would only be granted access to the military building on the understanding that they can only report on information that has been officially authorised bythe Department of Defence.
Almost all major news outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and The National rejected this new policy, and journalists were forced to pack up their desks and hand over their media credentials. To find out more about what this means for the changing state of press freedoms in the US and beyond, we spoke to Newcastle University graduate Thomas Watkins, who is the US bureau chief and foreign correspondent at The National.
An important statement in the land of the First Amendment
Last month, I made what presumably was my final trip to the Pentagon. Having covered the US Department of Defence in various capacities for a decade, I had to surrender my access badge because I refused to sign new rules barring journalists from “soliciting” sensitive information - aka being journalists.
Almost all major news outlets covering the Pentagon had deemed the restrictions unworkable and emptied out their workspaces in the vast Virginia building that once prided itself on accommodating defence correspondents: an unusual arrangement and an important statement in the land of the First Amendment, which protects free speech.
For more than eight decades, reporters have worked in the heart of the Pentagon, covering countless conflicts and scandals and providing vital scrutiny of the world’s most expensive military, which currently has an annual budget of nearly $1 trillion.
That all changed under Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, himself a former presenter at Fox News, who marginalised the press over fears of leaks and negative coverage. In his 10 months on the job, he has held just two formal press briefings and has lashed out against reporters asking difficult questions. Many pointed to the irony in his press clampdown, given that the biggest leak this year came from Hegseth himself, when he inadvertently shared Yemen war plans with a journalist on an unsecured Signal group chat.
More than half of the world’s population now lives in a country where press freedom is in a “very serious” situation.
A global affair
The decision to force new restrictions on reporters is just one facet of the Government’s broader push to stifle criticism and comes at a time when press freedoms are slipping globally.
According to Reporters Without Borders, more than half of the world’s population now lives in a country where press freedom is in a “very serious” situation and where practicing journalism comes at great personal risk to the reporter.
The US slipped from 55th to 57th place in the World Press Freedom Index, which looks at 180 countries. The UK fares better, and is currently ranked in 20th place, but British reporters have long faced legal risks for reporting on powerful people, thanks to the country’s tough defamation laws that make it easy to sue for libel.
Politicians’ contempt for the press is being echoed by the public, with journalists often facing intimidation, threats and the risk of physical violence simply for doing their jobs.
Curtailing scrutiny
Here in Washington, attacks on so-called “fake news” media have morphed from hostility into policy.
In February, the White House barred the Associated Press from briefings because the global news agency refused to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” after it was changed by decree.
Pro-Trump influencers, podcasters and bloggers are replacing spaces in the Pentagon and White House that previously were filled by mainstream media outlets.
And the President has sued or threatened to sue news outlets that pursue negative stories. For instance, he filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over its reporting of Jeffrey Epstein and his friendship with Trump.
The WSJ is fighting the lawsuit, but other outlets have folded. CBS agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit after the broadcaster was sued for what was called a “deceptively edited” video of an interview with Kamala Harris when she was running for president last year. The Washington Post faced a reader backlash after it declined to endorse a candidate in the 2024 election, a move critics contend was fuelled by fear of retaliation.
The Trump administration is weighing other moves to curtail scrutiny, including by placing tough new constraints on visas for foreign journalists. At the same time, a new cadre of pro-Trump influencers, podcasters and bloggers are replacing spaces in the Pentagon and White House that previously were filled by mainstream media outlets.
Saying bye to the bullpen
Before handing in my Pentagon pass, I had one final opportunity to visit the “bullpen” – the shared space where radio and print journalists had worked. All that remained of decades of toil were abandoned keyboards, reference books, internet cables and office detritus. Photos of reporters interacting with previous defence secretaries had been ripped from the walls of the Correspondents' Corridor, leaving only empty frames stuck to the walls.
It seemed like an ignominious end for a press corps that has given everything – many war correspondents have been killed doing their jobs – to cover the American military.