The Pentagon, under Secretary Pete Hegseth, has enacted a sweeping new policy requiring all Department of Defense personnel to seek prior approval from the Legislative Affairs Office before communicating with Congress or state officials. This move is widely criticized by lawmakers from both sides of the aisle as an unprecedented attempt to stifle transparency, hinder vital oversight, and potentially undermine national security accountability.
A new directive from the Pentagon is sending shockwaves through Washington D.C., fundamentally altering how the Department of Defense (DoD) interacts with Congress and state officials. On October 15, 2025, a memo signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg mandated that nearly all DoD personnel, acting in their official capacity, must obtain prior approval and coordination from the Legislative Affairs Office (LAO) before engaging with lawmakers or their staff. This marks a significant departure from long-standing practices and raises serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the delicate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
The Sweeping Scope of the New Directive
The memo, authenticated by a Pentagon official, is remarkably broad. It states that “all interactions with Congress or state elected officials by DoD personnel, in their official capacity, requires prior [Legislative Affairs Office] approval and coordination.” This includes even informal engagements outside the National Capital Region and applies to high-ranking officials like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the only notable exemption being the Inspector General’s Office, as reported by NBC News. Previously, individual agencies and military branches within the Pentagon managed their own interactions with Capitol Hill, fostering a more direct and often informal flow of information.
The stated rationale behind this drastic shift, according to Hegseth and Feinberg, is to “achieve our legislative goals” and prevent “unauthorized engagements” from undermining “Department-wide priorities.” Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell echoed this, calling the change a “pragmatic step” to improve internal communication processes and facilitate “increased transparency,” according to Breaking Defense.
A Pattern of Tightened Information Control
This directive isn’t an isolated incident but rather part of a broader trend under Secretary Hegseth’s leadership to tighten control over the flow of information from the Department of Defense. Just last week, dozens of reporters were stripped of their credentials after refusing to sign restrictive agreements that would limit them to reporting only “approved” yet unclassified information. Critics view these actions, coupled with the new communication policy, as a concerted effort to create an information “chokehold,” limiting public and congressional access to critical details about military operations and departmental affairs. The memo’s subtle use of the unofficial moniker “Department of War” also suggests a potential ideological shift within the administration, which some find unsettling.
Congressional Backlash: A Bipartisan Outcry
The reaction from Capitol Hill has been swift and largely critical, transcending typical partisan divides. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have voiced strong concerns, highlighting the practical difficulties and democratic implications of such a policy:
- Representative George Whitesides (D-Calif.), House Armed Services Committee member: Strongly criticized the move, stating, “Congress decides who Congress will talk to, and the continued efforts of the secretary to wall off the department is not consistent with past tradition, and I frankly don’t think it’ll fly with the members or leaders of the committee.”
- Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee: Called the memo “symptomatic” of “the paranoia that is emanating from the Defense Department,” warning that it positions the department to “act unchecked” and suggesting a leadership “afraid of scrutiny.”
- Representative Tom Cole (R-Okla.), House Appropriations Committee Chairman: Characterized the policy as “ill-advised, and it’s not going to work,” emphasizing the importance of direct communication with various personnel for essential information, especially regarding funding and operational impacts.
- Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas): Expressed disbelief at the idea of senior military leaders needing vetting for every contact, subtly reminding the administration of Congress’s power over the DoD’s budget and the Senate’s role in confirming high-ranking appointees.
- Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.): Stated his disturbance by the efforts to restrict communication, linking it to potential evasion of “scrutiny and oversight for illegal actions” and warning it “undermines the security of America and our allies.”
- Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): Criticized the policy for underlining “a lack of trust in the organization” and suggesting that Secretary Hegseth had “fallen short” of managerial expectations.
Implications for Oversight, Trust, and Accountability
This policy change is not merely a bureaucratic tweak; it strikes at the heart of democratic accountability and the checks and balances designed to ensure responsible governance. Congressional oversight is a cornerstone of American democracy, allowing elected representatives to scrutinize executive actions, allocate resources, and ensure the military operates effectively and ethically. By funneling all communication through a single legislative affairs office, critics argue that the Pentagon risks:
- Eroding Trust: Informal, direct communication builds trust and provides lawmakers with nuanced, real-time insights often unavailable through formal channels.
- Hindering Information Flow: Essential information, particularly concerning local military installations, personnel well-being, or the impacts of budget decisions, could be delayed or filtered.
- Undermining Oversight: A centralized gatekeeper could potentially control the narrative, obscure problems, or prevent dissenting voices from reaching congressional ears, thereby weakening Congress’s ability to perform its oversight duties.
- Creating Inefficiency: The sheer volume of interactions means the LAO could become a bottleneck, slowing down vital communications.
The policy’s impact on national security could be profound. Unfettered access to accurate information is crucial for lawmakers to make informed decisions on military funding, deployments, and strategy. Restricting this access could lead to ill-informed policy choices, jeopardize troop welfare, and weaken the nation’s defense posture by creating a less transparent, more isolated Pentagon.
Looking Ahead: What This Means for the Future
The strong bipartisan condemnation suggests that the Pentagon’s new communication policy will face significant challenges. Lawmakers have already signaled their intent to resist, leveraging their constitutional powers over funding and confirmations. The situation underscores a critical tension between an administration’s desire for message control and Congress’s constitutional mandate for oversight. As this policy unfolds, the ability of Congress to effectively monitor the nation’s defense apparatus and hold its leadership accountable hangs in a delicate balance. The ultimate outcome will likely define the relationship between the Pentagon and Capitol Hill for years to come, with profound implications for democratic governance and national security.
