Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (2:00)

Yeah, that was journalists from dozens of different outlets, including the BBC, who've refused to sign up to new rules that the Pentagon wants them to agree to, but they say would restrict their ability to do their reporting properly. So in this episode of AmericasT, we're going to discuss all of that, but also ask what this tells us about the Trump administration's relationship with the media and whether or not they are trying to silence criticism. Welcome to AmericasT.

BBC AmericasT Intro/Outro Host (2:27)

AmericasT, AmericasT from BBC News.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (2:31)

When Donald Trump calls, they say, yes, sir, right away, sir.

Pete Hegseth (2:35)

Happy to lick your boot, sir.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (2:37)

We are the sickest country in the world. Oh, dear. Are you worried that billionaires are going to go hungry?

Marianna (AmericasT Social Media/Commentator) (2:43)

Of course the president supports peaceful protests. What a stupid question.

Donald Trump (2:46)

Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein.

Marianna (AmericasT Social Media/Commentator) (2:55)

Hello, It is Marianna, aka misinformation, in the worldwide headquarters of AmericasT in London.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (3:01)

Hi, there it is Sarah here in the BBC's Washington bureau.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (3:04)

And it's Anthony right next to Sarah, Also in Washington D.C. now we've got.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (3:08)

A guest coming on today which we're quite excited about. It's a top reporter from one of the news organizations who have refused to sign up to the new restrictions on reporting in the Pentagon, James Rosen from Newsmax, which is Anthony. It's quite a conservative outlet, isn't it? Reasonably sympathetic to Donald Trump?

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (3:24)

It is. It's definitely friendly Trump. Their reporters tend to be right leaning, but it still is one that clearly in this case doesn't feel like these restrictions are something they can go along with.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (3:39)

So before we hear from him, we better just lay out exactly what it is that's going on here and what the Trump administration's trying to do and why it's so incredibly unusual. They asked everybody who is accredited to go into the Pentagon. So people who've got a pass, that means that they can go in and out of the Pentagon and probably have desks and seats that, that they can use to work from. Everybody who had one of them had to sign up to a new policy which contains specific restrictions on how they could do their jobs. And the most egregious bit was it would bar journalists from reporting information that had not been officially authorized by the Department of Defense, something that basically gone out in an official press release. And so all these major outlets, abc, cnn, the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News and the BBC, of course, all said that they would not see sign up to these restrictions. Only one organization did agree to sign this new policy, which was one America News Network. We're a pretty conservative news channel, fairly supportive of Donald Trump. They agreed to this, but every other media outlet this week handed in their press passes and they all walked out together because they wouldn't sign up to this new policy.

Marianna (AmericasT Social Media/Commentator) (4:49)

Let's take a little bit of a look at what some of this policy says. There's this section, for example, which is about what they call soliciting or encouraging government employees to break the law. So they basically say there's a distinction between lawfully requesting information from the government and then doing this thing of soliciting that from employees and encouraging them to break the law. And it says the First Amendment. So freedom of expression does not permit journalists to solicit government employees to violate the law by providing confidential government information. The press's rights are not absolute. Do not override the government's compelling interest in maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive information. The thing that's interesting here, though, is, and this is what a lot of people are asking, including journalists, what is the difference between solicitation or just saying what's going on inside the building, what's happening? Because obviously there are, you know, there are particular laws that can be broken, particularly when it comes to issues of defense, of national security. But also, it is such common practice as a journalist to deal with whistleblowers, insiders. I mean, I deal with it in a different context, social media companies. But that is just. That's part and parcel of our job, isn't it, Anthony? Sarah? I mean, it's not.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (5:55)

It's.

Marianna (AmericasT Social Media/Commentator) (5:56)

It's kind of what we do all the time.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (5:57)

Yeah. What the Pentagon and Hegseth wants this to be about is they don't want reporters to be walking the hallways and buttonholing military officials and getting them to reveal secrets or convincing them, browbeating them into revealing secrets. But what this policy goes on to say is that regardless of how you get that information, you're not supposed to report it. Whether you found someone in the hall to give you a document or talk to you about a document, or you used other sources outside the Pentagon, they're still saying, we want to have pre approval for anything you publish, and you can't publish any kind of classified information. And, of course, publishing classified information is at the heart of what the American media does. You think back to some very notable examples. The Pentagon Papers, for example, in the 1960s, which was Pentagon military documents about how the military was conducting the war in Vietnam during the 50s and 60s. Highly inflammatory, very controversial, but also very revelatory because it showed what the American military was doing in Vietnam, and it helped turn the public against the Vietnam War. That in theory, under these rules would be strictly forbidden. So I think that's what the conflict is here, what the disagreement is. But maybe we should hear directly from Trump and Pete Hegseth talking about why they instituted this policy. This was them in the White House explaining.

Donald Trump (7:28)

I mean, I think I can speak for him. I'll let him speak for himself. But I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace and maybe security for our nation. Press is very dishonest. Not you, but the press is very dishonest. Do you have something to say?

Pete Hegseth (7:43)

Well, I very much appreciate the question because it was interesting to watch. We had a chance to go along on the historic trip of Middle east peace, which our generation of veterans never dreamed would be possible. So you would think that the Pentagon press corps, of all press corps would be front and center across the board on wanting to give credit to the president for forging this kind of peace. And instead, what they want to talk about is a policy about them which simply says maybe the policy should look like the White House or other military installations where you have to wear a badge that identifies that you're press or you can't just roam anywhere you want. It used to be, Mr. President, the press could go anywhere, pretty much anywhere in the Pentagon, the most classified area in the world. Or also that if they sign onto the credentialing, they're not going to try to get soldiers to break the law by giving them classified information. So it's common sense stuff, Mr. President, we're trying to make sure national security is respected and we're proud of the policy.

Donald Trump (8:42)

You know, we have an option here as do as you know, the press years ago moved into the White House, used to be across the street. We could move them. You're lucky I'm president because we could move them very easily across the street. They used to be there. They would have more room. We have a beautiful, nice space. You could sit all by yourselves and have fun. Instead, you walk around the White House talking to anybody that can breathe. And, you know, but I find that when it comes to war, and now our great department of War, we have some great people over there. I think it's sort of, it bothers me to have soldiers and even, you know, high ranking generals walking around with you guys on their sleeve asking them because they can make a mistake. And a mistake can be tragic.

Marianna (AmericasT Social Media/Commentator) (9:27)

Okay, so that was what Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth had to say. But what about the other side, what journalists are saying? This is one of the reporters who handed in her press credentials. She's the Washington Post Pentagon correspondent Tara Kopp. And this is what she said to Fox News.

Tara Kopp (9:41)

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify and clean up a couple of misrepresentations that the Pentagon has made recently. We are all credentialed press. We've been there for decades. We go to war with these troops. We go, all of us have been all over the world with these service members to even have a badge in the Pentagon. We all undergo just a very basic background check. It does not allow us any access to classified spaces. We have no more access to the building than, say, the people that work at the CVS or some of the food outlets that serve everybody who work in the Pentagon at its height, there's more than 26,000 people that go in and out of that building every single day. The benefit to the public for having us in the building on key days, on days like when we have struck Iran with our B2 stealth bombers or when 13 service members were killed in Afghanistan. We're in the hallways because we can be there to talk to people, to get a sense of things, to understand what the ground truth is, and not just get the one official narrative from an email or from a video posted to X or from a tweet. And that's an invaluable service to the public. Our ability to talk to multiple people, to build those relationships, to be in the hallways, to really get a sense for where we think the military is headed and what they're thinking is a great responsibility and one we take very seriously.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (11:11)

That was a good explanation, I think, of some of the misconceptions that Donald Trump, Pete Hexer seem to have about these reporters being able to roam through classified spaces and access all sorts of information and things. And contrary to what Donald Trump was saying there, even though Anthony and I have White House passes, we're not allowed to roam all the corridors of the White House if only talk to anyone who can breathe. And of course, I mean, we heard from. They were putting their case. They want to make this sound as though journalists who've got Pentagon passes are kind of stealing classified information and putting it out there. When they're talking about not being allowed to report anything unless it's officially authorized, they're talking also about people's just impressions, for instance, nothing confidential or classified necessarily about saying hypothetically, none of the military top brass have got faces in peak Hagseth as the Secretary of War. They don't think he's doing his job terribly well. It's the sort of thing that he doesn't want to see reported. And you would be barred from reporting under these rules.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (12:09)

Yeah. And I think what Kopp says there gets to the heart of this. The journalists want to get more than the official story. They want to talk to other people, including, as you mentioned, some people who may not like Pete Hegseth. There are a lot of people in the Pentagon who don't like Pete Hegseth that we've seen from reporting from a variety of different outlets. And the Pentagon and Hegseth want their official line to be the only line that is reported on that comes out of the Pentagon. So it's a leak control policy as much as it is some sort of concerns about national security. So, I mean, that is, that's the heart of this. And I think when you, when you get right down to it, Hegseth seems perfectly happy to get them out of there. It's not just the stories about Hegseth either. It's, it's. The whole administration was pretty ticked off when Pentagon reporters dug into the, the after action reports on that B2 strike in Iran and had some military officials saying, well, it doesn't look like we did as much damage as we thought that was. They didn't want that out there either. And that is something that comes from reporting and having sources in the Pentagon who are not the official source. Because if he only went by the press release, if he only went by what Pete Hegseth said from the podium in the press room in the Pentagon, then you would think everything was just great. And it was a total success. Never been a better success. And that is not the story that reporters were hearing from other people.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (13:30)

Yeah. And of course, the irony is that Pete Hegseth was working for Fox News before he got tapped up to be the Defense Secretary or War secretary, as he likes to call himself. And Fox News are among the people who've refused to sign up to this as well. So, yeah, they don't think they've got a different definition of press freedom than the War Secretary has, clearly. And his, you know, there have been a lot of leaks about Rose within his office and things, so maybe it's not surprising that he wants to try and crack down on that. But some of the reporters who spent a lot of time in the Pentagon, seen many defence secretaries come and go, think they know why he's trying to restrict press access. Listen to Barbara Starr, who's also with the Pentagon Press association, who has been for decades reporting from the Pentagon.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (14:16)

Mr. Trump likes to talk to the media every day that he's in office. Hegseth almost never talks to the media. And I think behind the scenes, the big question that's being whispered about more and more is what is Hegseth afraid of? If he's afraid of leaks, go after those he believes are leaking.

Marianna (AmericasT Social Media/Commentator) (14:38)

Pete Hegseth is made no like it's being outlined there, has made no secret of some of the hostility he's felt towards the press and has been quite critical of the press more generally. I mean, I think back though, to that really high profile story that we all chatted about when a journalist got added to that group chat, do you remember? And Pete Hegseth was sharing confidential information on A signal chat that was about military operations against the Houthis in. In Yemen. And that was such a big deal. And that didn't come about from anyone being in any corridors or anywhere at all. It came out. It came about because somebody accidentally added this journalist to the chat. So I don't know, in. In some ways, you wonder whether how far, and I don't know what either of you think, how far this goes in terms of actually, if this is something that is beneficial to Pete Hegseth, eg, it stops there being briefings against him or that disagree with him. Like, does it. I don't know, will it ultimately have that effect? Or will journalists just still kind of be able to talk to sources in a different capacity and in a different way?

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (15:39)

Yeah. The Pentagon isn't a submarine. I mean, things leak out of there. As we heard from COP. They're 20,000 people who work in that building every day. And there are people who have agendas, who want to. And have relationships with reporters who want to share that information. So I think that, you know, it is a futile effort to try to control this, whether you control it from having reporters inside the building or outside the building. And I think maybe some of this with Hegseth goes back to his confirmation hearings, which were highly contentious, where there were a lot of stories the press reported on and allegations of domestic abuse. And so he has a chip on his shoulder from that even going before then, he was kind of an outspoken advocate for soldiers who had been accused of war crimes. And it was reporting from journalists on the scene, defense reporters in places like Afghanistan, who got a lot of those stories about alleged abuses out. And so he's been at loggerheads, even though he was a. A Fox News host in the evening. He's been at loggerheads with the press and press coverage of the military for quite some time.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (16:47)

Yeah. And it's clear when he does take questions that he doesn't have a lot of respect for people's right to ask those questions or to hear the answers. And he's got this very, very pugnacious style where he's sort of always kind of ratcheted up to 10 or 11. Really, really angry about the fact that he's being asked about these things. You frequently see that. And there was one particularly famous exchange at a Pentagon press briefing this year with the Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin. And it was that story Anthony was just referring to there, the questioning exactly how much damage was done to Iran's nuclear facilities after a B2 bombing strike on them by the US military.

Jennifer Griffin (17:26)

Do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was inside the 4 do mountain or some of it? Because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in a advance. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?

James Rosen (17:42)

Of course.

Pete Hegseth (17:42)

We're watching every single aspect. But, Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most intentionally, what the president says.

Jennifer Griffin (17:53)

I'm familiar about the ventilation shafts on Saturday night. And in fact, I was the first to describe the B2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission with great accuracy. So I take issue with that.

Pete Hegseth (18:07)

I appreciate you acknowledging that this is the first opera, the most successful mission based on operational security that this department has done since you've been here. And I appreciate that.

Marianna (AmericasT Social Media/Commentator) (18:17)

I think it would probably be fair to say, you know, whether it's Pete Hegseth or whether it's many of the kind of politicians who, who the team that Donald Trump surrounds himself with and Donald Trump himself have, have not exactly had a straightforward relationship with the press, certainly the whole of this presidency and last time around for Donald Trump as well. And I guess in terms of where this particular Pentagon issue fits into the wider approach that Donald Trump is taking, I mean, I know we've all chatted about it quite a lot, but there is this quite stark issue of Donald Trump has spent a lot of time and the people around him, including Pete Hegseth, talking about the importance of freedom of expression, the importance that, you know, powerful people can be held to account. And that narrative worked quite well when they weren't in power. And then you've got these kinds of decisions being made which seem to fly in the face of those principles. But. But then again, it doesn't seem like that's being recognized by the administration.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (19:11)

Yeah, it's kind of contradiction when you, when you look at the very top. And Donald Trump, he loves talking to the press. He's in front of the press all the time. The level of access that we as White House reporters get to Donald Trump is remarkable and nothing like any other White House that I have covered, and I think most reporters who are live today have covered. On the other hand, you see Donald Trump have a hostility towards the press and very thin skin towards critical press coverage. You heard him in that clip we played him referencing moving the press across the street and out of the White House, which is something, I think, despite the fact that we might get nicer digs, it's something that a lot of reports object to because it would Create a barrier, a separation between the press and the White House that isn't there right now, but it goes beyond that. I mean, just not just that threat, but also the way he talks about, say, the Associated Press. When the Associated Press wouldn't refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, they tried to lock them out of the Oval Office and keep them off of Air Force One and took it to court to fight it out with the Associated Press. And then cutting funding for things like Voice of America, the government funded news reporting agency that presents American news to the rest of the world. And cutting funding to PBS and National Public Radio, also organizations that sometimes critically cover the White House but have some funding from the federal government. And so you see this hostility here and it's steps that Donald Trump is taking. Even though he's perfectly willing to talk to the press, he's also willing to, to pressure them and try to bully them into reporting the way he likes.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (20:50)

And a lot of it's very transparent. I mean, they don't make a huge secret of this. There's always a tension with political reporting anywhere in the world between criticizing the people that you're covering, but also speaking to and relying on as a source. And the more you criticize somebody in print or on television or on the radio, the less likely they are to grant you an interview in future or tell you something off the record in future. So you're always trying to balance that in your own mind. Mind how you can continue to effectively do the job. Donald Trump's absolutely naked about it. I mean, quite often when he is taking all of these questions from people gathered around him in the Oval Office or anywhere, he'll take a question from someone and then realize what network they're from and say, no, actually, no, you can't ask a question. I don't like abc. You're mean to me. You lie about me. I'm not speaking to abc. You don't get a question and take one from maybe a more sympathetic journalist standing in the room as well. So it's very upfront, at least the way he deals with this kind of thing. But changing the rules like this is making official the way in which they. Yeah. Don't respect the fact that the press have a right to cover them this way and want to try and control it.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (22:00)

Yeah. When I was in the Middle east with Trump on his trip there, Peter Alexander from NBC News tried to ask a question and he just shut it down. I don't even remember what the gripe he had against NBC News was at the time, but he says you're fake news. I'm not gonna answer your question now. As ABC News, Trump in the White House. When Jonathan Karl, the White House correspondent for ABC News, been there forever, highly respected, tried to ask a question, Trump shut him down, and here he is. I mean, you can listen to how Trump does it, because this is routine practice for this president.

Pete Hegseth (22:32)

Yeah, I just want to settle this free speech question because you've said that you restored free speech in America. Is that free speech, including for people who are harshly critical of you, for your political opponents, for people who say things you don't like?

Donald Trump (22:45)

I become immune to it. I've become immune to it. There's never been a person that's had more unfair publicity than me. And that's why your network paid me $15 million or $16 million, I believe, to be exact, George Slopadopoulos. And that's why CPS paid me a lot of money, too. And that's why I sued the New York Times two days ago. For a lot of money, Judge, because I. Well, I'm winning. I mean, I'm winning the cases. And the reason I'm winning is because you're guilty, John. You're guilty. ABC is a terrible network, a very unfair network, and you should be ashamed of yourself. NBC is equally bad. I don't know who's worse. I think they're equally bad. And, you know, for you to stand there and act so innocent and ask me a question like that. But, look, you paid a big price because you were dishonest, John. The reason I won that lawsuit was because you were dishonest. You were proven to be dishonest. And so you can't sit back and just say, oh, what do you think? You know, like, you're some wonderful person. You're not a wonderful person, frankly. You're a terrible reporter. You know it, and so do I. Okay.

Marianna (AmericasT Social Media/Commentator) (23:51)

What I would say, and that I think is quite interesting here, is, you know when, and we've spoken quite a lot about the legal action that Donald Trump has decided to take against different media outlets. And there you can almost. I mean, we can never get inside Donald Trump's head, but you can kind of see its purpose, which is to be able to turn around and say, look, look, look, because I won this, or they settled or because we struck up deal. It's therefore proof that you were wrong and I was right. And I mean, a lot of people refer to these examples online, people who don't like Donald Trump very much as Examples of where they believe he, you know, is. Is behaving much more akin to, say, an authoritarian regime than. Than, you know, as a president of a democracy. What I would actually say, and, and maybe this is just because I inhabit my kind of social media bubble, but I do just think that a lot of this, for me, seems like the algorithmic effect on politics, which is you just are basically no longer able to. You're constantly kind of engulfed by and surrounded by people that agree with you, and, and anything that you don't agree with is wrong. And that's just kind of how it feels like quite a lot of politicians in this administration operate to some degree. It's sort of like the filter bubbles on steroids. It's when you're pushed stuff all the time that you agree with, that people agree with that that you think is right. And that's actually shaping how we deal with politics, which is why it becomes hard for either side to have a conversation with each other.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (25:10)

One of the new things with the White House press corps is some of the new media outlets who have been given press passes and access, and their questions are very often taken because their questions are things like, how did this amazing president get to be so amazing? And what more amazing things is he going to do over the next couple of months? And so that injects a whole new atmosphere into covering the press, but it doesn't stop other reporters asking the kind of difficult, tricky questions that the White House are more used to.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (25:38)

Right. But it has changed the way the press pool in particular, which is a limited number of reporters who get into the Oval Office, onto Air Force One and to smaller events from the White House, how, how it covers this president. And it does change the tenor of these gaggles with the president, because the first few questions Trump tends to gravitate towards are ones that are friendly. And then, as we've seen, he will. He will bristle and react hostilely and shut down and not answer questions from the established reporters. So it is. It is a marked difference from the way things have been conducted even in Trump's first presidential term.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (26:14)

Mariana, you've got to go, haven't you?

Marianna (AmericasT Social Media/Commentator) (26:16)

I do, I do. Back to social media land, as we call it. Bye, guys.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (26:20)

Right, let's talk now to a representative of one of those news organizations who refused to sign up to the Pentagon's new policy. James Rosen is the chief Washington correspondent for Newsmax, which is a pretty conservative news channel. Channel. But nonetheless, James, you absolutely would not agree to sign up to these new rules. Run us through. Why?

James Rosen (26:39)

Well, first, it's great to be with you, Sarah, and my former White House colleague, Anthony. And I should point out first that I've been a reporter in Washington for 26 years. I spent 19 years at Fox News covering the White House and the State Department and much else. And I report without fear of favor toward any administration. I think I've got a track record that demonstrates that. And sometimes that makes you a man without a country to. The specific question of why Newsmax declined to sign the Pentagon letter, along with just about every other organization, was simply because the company regarded the Pentagon rules as cutting to the very heart of First Amendment press freedoms. And our statement said that we are trying to resolve this privately and quietly with other organizations, but that we regard these rules and the specific words used by the company were onerous and unacceptable. The statement also made clear that Newsmax regards that the company has the right to publish classified information without approval from the Department of War, and concluded by saying that we simply couldn't sign a letter that states that we do not.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (27:44)

Right. As we discussed earlier, it's not just about what the Pentagon and the Trump administration want to characterize this as. As, oh, reporters bumping into admirals in the hallway and subordinating them to provide classified information. It's no matter where you get that classified information, you're not supposed to publish it. And signing off to this is telling the Pentagon that you're not going to report on classified information, which there's obviously a long history of media outlets doing exactly that and doing it for the public good.

James Rosen (28:16)

You're correct. But I think that the Pentagon press rules went farther than simply seeking to enjoin organizations and have them sign on to an injunction against them reporting classified information. The rules, as I understand them, also ask the organizations, the news organizations, to, in essence, to promise not to report information from unauthorized sources. There was a great mob movie in this country called Cop Land, and it starred Ray Liotta and, I think De Niro and Pacino. And Ray Liotta says this takes place in New York City. And Ray Liotta says to someone at one point in this, in this movie, Freddie, to get down Broadway, you don't go down Broadway. Now, all New Yorkers already understand that. This native New Yorker certainly did. When I was living there, if you were at the very top of Broadway, which, which runs the entire length of Manhattan, and you wanted to get to the lower end of Broadway, you would not just travel down Broadway in a southern direction, you would get off of Broadway. You would get on one of the highways that line the east or west side of Manhattan, you'd zoom down, and then you'd cut back in to get to Lower Broadway. And the fact that these reporters have now been made to evacuate their workspaces does not mean, by any means that they are somehow now utterly enjoined or entirely enjoined from reporting on the building and the institution of the Pentagon. If you want to be a good White House correspondent, what you really need to do is go out of the White House and then gather information and go back into the White House to ask about it in a knowledgeable way and get good content to report on that. By no means is this going to stop effective, honest and important journalism about the Department of War.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (30:01)

Not that many stories that are coming out of there on a daily basis do involve classified information. And, you know, yeah, there will be occasions when under any administration, they're upset that classified information is being made public public, even if it is in the public benefit. But what, presumably they're more upset about is people being critical of the Secretary of War, of the administration. And the reporting there has been about feuds inside Pete Hegseth's own office, that kind of stuff. And they're characterizing it as though this is, you know, this is really sensitive national security information that's being put out there by these reckless journalists, when in fact, the suspicion is presumably that it's criticism of them themselves that they don't like.

James Rosen (30:45)

So the explanation put forward by Secretary Hegseth, whom I knew cursorily when both of us worked at Fox News, is essentially two tiered. At the top tier is the concern about classified information, this being some sort of effort to redress that perceived problem. The other lower tier of concern, nonetheless expressed is that what is sought here is simply to apply the same rules for press movement and access that prevail at the White House, where the movement and the access of reporters has been sharply curtailed for decades, or at any other secure military installation. But many observers, even many, I would say, who are sympathetic to Secretary Hegseth, who admire him, and who are sympathetic to and admire President Trump, the commander in chief, regard this policy as baffling because it betrays their usual swagger. These supporters are more accustomed to seeing the secretary and the president move with a certain confidence and bravado and swagger that would be governed rather by the ethos of, to use a somewhat New Yorky term, let's do kick ass work at the Pentagon and we'll get kick ass press coverage the press coverage will follow. When you do great work, they'll report it. Maybe they are so they feel so burned by decades of mainstream media coverage that they don't have that confidence. But I would say that they have bigger and better things to worry about than what a given Pentagon correspondent is up to in the corridors.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (32:22)

I love all these New York references, by the way, James, I think as we discussed, I'm married to a New Yorker, so I hear it all the time at home as well. Well, I think this is personal to you too, because you have reported using classified information you actually investigated by Obama's Justice Department for relying on classified information, I think from the State Department, right, for a story you wrote. I mean, tell me how chilling something like this could be for reporters trying to get information, trying to get classified information, then relaying those stories to the public.

James Rosen (32:58)

So the episode from the Obama era to which you alluded is often misrepresented on social media. I think in June of this year I posted a very long post to X explaining exactly what happened in that whole case. The Obama administration used the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate my sources for a series of stories I reported at the time on North Korea, its nuclear program, its succession plan for Kim Jong Un, et cetera. And the administration filed a search warrant application before a federal judge secretly in which the FBI agent who swore out the affidavit in seeking that search warrant so that they could rummage through my Gmail accounts, my phone lines, my parents phone line, etc. Affirmed that in all his years of investigating counterespianage cases and so forth, that I had been guilty in my journalism of behaving like, as he put it, a criminal co conspirator in a violation of the espionage act of 1917. And no presidential administration in United States history had ever before designated a reporter a criminal co conspirator for doing his job. And by way of contrast, not even the Nixon administration thusly designated Neil Sheehan, the late, great Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for the New York Times, who published the Pentagon papers, which was 7,000 pages of classified documents. And so that was unprecedented in history for the Department of Justice and the FBI to categorize a working reporter as a criminal co conspirator. In the end, an investigation was undertaken by the Attorney General, Eric Holder, who admitted having signed off on this novel designation. That's what passed for accountability. And some procedural reforms were enacted recently rescinded. So it's a good thing to be there. I did once buttonhole a an assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric affairs in the salad line at the State Department food court and did get information out of him. But generally speaking, there's a, there's a long history of reporters and, and public officials intermingling and even being friends and doing their jobs conscientiously, I think, without need for this kind of measure.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (35:22)

I really appreciate, James, you coming on and sharing your thoughts with us. And we'll have to have you back once we get a little removed from all of this and we can decide whether Trump was this unique force or if things have fundamentally changed.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (35:37)

Yeah. Thank you very much for joining us, James. It was great to talk to you.

James Rosen (35:41)

Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, Sarah.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (35:43)

All right, well, that's it for this episode of AmericasT. But as ever, we will be bringing you lots more next week, so we hope you join us then. Bye bye.

Anthony (BBC Washington Bureau) (35:51)

It's been fun. Talk to you all later. AmericasT.

BBC AmericasT Intro/Outro Host (35:56)

AmericasT from BBC News, well done for.

Sarah (BBC Washington Bureau) (36:00)

Getting all the way to the end of another americast episode. That makes you officially an americaster. It's not easy navigating your way through the news in America, particularly at the moment, but you did it and we're delighted to have you with us. So if you do have a comment or a question about any of the stories we've talked about or anything you'd like us to talk about, do please get in touch. You can email us americastbc.co.uk you can WhatsApp us a message on 033-01-2390. And we do answer your questions every single week on the podcast. You can always join the discussion in our online community on Discord. The link is in our podcast description in your app and we'll be back with another episode very soon. Till then, see you all later. Bye bye.

BBC Announcer (36:56)

At the BBC we go further so you see clearer. With a subscription to BBC.com you get unlimited articles and videos, hundreds of ad free podcasts and the BBC News Channel streaming live 24. 7 from less than a dollar a week for your first year. Read, watch and listen to trusted independent journalism and storytelling. It all starts with a subscription to BBC.com find out more@BBC.com unlimited.