Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's recent memo has raised significant concerns among lawmakers, as it restricts the interactions between Pentagon officials and Congress. The new policy requires formal approval for nearly all Department of Defense correspondence with lawmakers, including high-ranking military officers and secretaries.
According to sources, most offices will need to obtain prior approval to communicate with Congress, while the Office of the Inspector General is exempt from this requirement due to its independent nature. This development has sparked criticism from Democrats, who argue that such control over communication can hinder transparency and oversight.
The memo's impact on Congressional access to information is significant, as lawmakers rely on timely updates to conduct their work effectively. Rep. Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has expressed deep concern that this policy could impede his committee's ability to receive detailed information in a timely manner.
Smith called for Defense Department personnel to "return to working with our committee in a collaborative and bipartisan manner" for the sake of national security, national defense, and transparency. The memo, signed by Hegseth and Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, emphasizes that unauthorized communications with Congress can undermine department-wide priorities and compromise legislative objectives.
This development comes after nearly all major news organizations left their Pentagon workspaces in protest over a new press requirement that could infringe on First Amendment rights. However, some outlets, including hard-right publications, agreed to sign the agreement acknowledging formal authorization would be required for publishing classified or "controlled unclassified" information.
As Congress continues to scrutinize the Pentagon's actions, lawmakers are pressing Hegseth to reconsider his policy and ensure that communication with Congress remains open and transparent. The impact of this memo on national security, transparency, and Congressional oversight will likely be closely monitored in the coming days and weeks.
According to sources, most offices will need to obtain prior approval to communicate with Congress, while the Office of the Inspector General is exempt from this requirement due to its independent nature. This development has sparked criticism from Democrats, who argue that such control over communication can hinder transparency and oversight.
The memo's impact on Congressional access to information is significant, as lawmakers rely on timely updates to conduct their work effectively. Rep. Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has expressed deep concern that this policy could impede his committee's ability to receive detailed information in a timely manner.
Smith called for Defense Department personnel to "return to working with our committee in a collaborative and bipartisan manner" for the sake of national security, national defense, and transparency. The memo, signed by Hegseth and Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg, emphasizes that unauthorized communications with Congress can undermine department-wide priorities and compromise legislative objectives.
This development comes after nearly all major news organizations left their Pentagon workspaces in protest over a new press requirement that could infringe on First Amendment rights. However, some outlets, including hard-right publications, agreed to sign the agreement acknowledging formal authorization would be required for publishing classified or "controlled unclassified" information.
As Congress continues to scrutinize the Pentagon's actions, lawmakers are pressing Hegseth to reconsider his policy and ensure that communication with Congress remains open and transparent. The impact of this memo on national security, transparency, and Congressional oversight will likely be closely monitored in the coming days and weeks.
. I get why they wanna control communication with Congress, but don't they think that's what oversight is for? 
Like, if we can't trust the people who are supposed to be holding them accountable, then how do we know anything is getting done properly? And what about all those journalists and press corps folks who were just trying to do their job, now being told they need permission from some faceless bureaucrat before they can even ask a question 
. That's not right imo 
I'm literally so disappointed in Defense Sec Pete Hegseth right now... He's basically trying to stonewall Congress from getting info they need to do their job 
. It's like, the Pentagon already has enough issues on its plate - what else are they gonna hide behind? 
I mean, I get that some stuff needs to be classified, but come on... Rep Adam Smith is right on point with this one 
. We need transparency and accountability from our government, not more secrecy 
. Can't we just have an open book around here for once? 
! I can see why Rep Adam Smith is upset - they're already trying to keep an eye on national security and defense, but if Pentagon officials are too scared to talk openly with them, that's not gonna help anything 
. And now with the press situation... I don't know how much more pressure can be put on these people 
. It feels like we're losing transparency in all this 
. Can't they just communicate openly and honestly? 
.
. I hope Rep. Smith's idea of working together in a collaborative way starts to happen soon 
. We need both sides to communicate openly and honestly if we want to keep our nation safe 
.
I mean, I get it, security is key, but restricting communication with Congress? That's just not right 
That's just frustrating, you know? I'd rather have open lines of communication than some big, red tape 
just kidding, sorta. But seriously, it does seem like a bit of an overreach, you know? I mean, don't they want lawmakers to be able to do their jobs and keep the country safe? 
. And can we talk about how this is gonna affect those news outlets that already lost their cool over some other policy 
? Like, I get it, First Amendment rights are important, but come on, folks! Can't we just have a chill conversation about national security without all the drama 
. Anyways, I'm sure Congress will figure out a way to make this work... eventually 
.
and its not just rep smith who's worried, lots of people are saying this is a bad idea. like what if the pentagon really does need help from congress but cant talk openly because of some memo? 
. It's ridiculous! I feel like we're living in some kind of spy novel where everything has to be approved and cleared before you can even say anything 
.
And what's up with the Office of the Inspector General being exempt from this rule? It just seems like another way to stonewall transparency and oversight.
. I know it's not meant to hinder transparency, but it feels like it's going to stifle our voices 
. Can't we just have a more open and collaborative approach instead? It's like they're trying to keep us in the dark 
.
... it's gotta be done, though - we do need some transparency in our government 
, but deep down, it's just a big ol' power grab 
.
. Transparency and oversight are key to keeping our nation safe and informed 
. I'm all for open communication between the Pentagon and Congress – it's like having a team effort, just like in "Apollo 13" 
.
.
. I mean, what if there's an emergency situation that needs immediate attention? Who's gonna be able to respond quickly then? 
The Democrats are right on this one - transparency and oversight are crucial for national security 
. We need to keep the lines of communication open between our leaders and the Pentagon 
. Anything less is just not right 
#TransparencyMatters #NationalSecurity #CollaborationOverControl
. what's next? they gonna require approval for every conversation about defense policy? it's supposed to be the representatives job to make sure the military is being held accountable 
. We need more oversight, not less! 
. Let's keep our lawmakers informed and in the loop 
.