By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During the government shutdown, the Trump administration inappropriately used government resources, including websites and emails, to blame Democrats, even creating templates for federal workers to use. Despite these efforts, officials across the country, from airports to newsrooms, have pushed back against the administration’s actions. Airports nationwide refused to air a video from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blaming Democrats. The Pentagon’s new restrictions on journalists were also met with a united front of refusals from major news organizations across the ideological spectrum.
Read the original article here
Backlash to Noem and Hegseth’s outrageous demands shows the simple power of saying no: Pushback on Noem’s TSA video and Hegseth’s Pentagon press policy proves the administration isn’t as all-powerful as it would like you to believe. It’s truly fascinating, isn’t it, how the illusion of absolute power often crumbles when confronted with a simple “no”? The recent pushback against certain demands from figures within the administration, specifically Kristi Noem and Pete Hegseth, offers a compelling demonstration of this. The administration might like to project an image of invincibility, but the reality is that the strength of resistance lies, in many ways, in the courage to decline.
Noem’s attempt to use TSA checkpoints for political messaging is a perfect illustration. Imagine, travelers already stressed by the airport experience, bombarded with a video that blames Democrats for potential travel delays. It’s an obvious attempt to manipulate public opinion and exploit a vulnerable situation. Yet, the response from airports across the country was a resounding “no.” Officials in major cities, citing violations of policy and law, refused to air the video. This act of defiance, this simple refusal to comply, immediately undermined the reach and impact of Noem’s message. It served as a clear signal that the administration’s dictates are not automatically accepted, and that local authorities retain the ability to push back against overreach.
This “no” wasn’t just about policy; it was about protecting the integrity of public spaces and preventing them from becoming tools of partisan propaganda. Airports, for all their commercial aspects, are still crucial public infrastructure. Allowing a politically charged video to play at TSA checkpoints would be a clear breach of neutrality. The airports’ actions, in effect, drew a line in the sand. This willingness to stand firm, to say that some things are out of bounds, is essential in upholding the principles of fairness and the rule of law. It’s a reminder that even when faced with perceived power, there’s always the option to say, “This far, and no further.”
Similar to the situation with Noem, Pete Hegseth’s attempt to control the narrative within the Pentagon also faced significant resistance. His plan to require journalists to sign a pledge, essentially promising not to report anything unapproved, was a direct assault on the freedom of the press. It was a thinly veiled effort to control the flow of information and muzzle critical reporting. This bold move, reminiscent of authoritarian tactics, was met with a chorus of disapproval.
News organizations from across the political spectrum, including Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and even Newsmax, collectively rejected Hegseth’s demand. They issued a joint statement, calling the policy “without precedent” and warning it would threaten core journalistic protections. The fact that the pushback included such a diverse range of media outlets speaks volumes. It underscored a shared understanding of the importance of an independent press in a democratic society and a determination to defend it.
This united front presented a significant challenge to Hegseth’s plan. By refusing to comply, these news organizations sent a clear message that they would not be complicit in the suppression of information. The press effectively used its collective power to safeguard its ability to report freely and to hold the administration accountable. This kind of coordinated resistance demonstrated the strength of a shared commitment to fundamental principles.
The contrasting outcomes of these two incidents—Noem’s thwarted video and Hegseth’s press restrictions—underscore a crucial point: power isn’t monolithic. It’s often contingent on compliance, and that compliance can be withdrawn. The strength of this reality is the simple power of saying no. It is a fundamental truth that must be acknowledged. It is often the first step in reclaiming agency and resisting overreach.
The fact that the administration faced such significant pushback in these instances suggests that it isn’t as all-powerful as it would like to portray itself. The administration’s attempts to control the flow of information and manipulate public opinion were thwarted, not by grand political schemes, but by the straightforward actions of individuals and institutions who simply refused to cooperate. This illustrates a critical point: even within an administration that aims to exert considerable control, there are always cracks where resistance can flourish. It requires vigilance, courage, and a collective willingness to defend fundamental freedoms.
The significance of these examples goes beyond specific incidents. They serve as a reminder that every action, every decision, carries weight. And even the simple act of saying “no” can be a powerful act of resistance. The courage to stand firm, to refuse to bend to pressure, is an essential ingredient in maintaining a healthy democracy. It’s a lesson that shouldn’t be overlooked. And the administration’s attempts to control, to dictate, to silence have shown us that, the people are not as easily controlled as they would have you believe. It’s important to remember that as individuals, and as a collective, our voices, and our choices, still matter. The story of resistance is always being written, and it is a story that requires constant participation.