By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Pentagon is restricting nearly all Defense Department personnel from communicating with Congress or state lawmakers without prior approval from the agency’s legislative affairs office. The memo, signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, aims to improve accuracy and responsiveness in communications, with the restriction applying to key figures like civilian leaders and combatant commanders. While a senior official claims the move is consistent with longstanding policy, another suggests it will centralize all communications, requiring even service legislative affairs staff to seek approval. This move follows prior efforts by Hegseth to control information flow and has been met with mixed reactions, with some seeing it as an overreach and others as a necessary measure for coordinated messaging.
Read the original article here
Hegseth orders prior approval for ‘all interactions’ between military officials and Congress. This is the crux of the matter, and it raises a lot of immediate questions. The implications here are significant, and it’s hard not to immediately feel a sense of unease.
The memo, signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, essentially requires all Department of Defense personnel, including military commanders, to get the okay from the agency’s legislative affairs office before they can talk to Congress or state lawmakers. The rationale, as stated in the memo, is that unauthorized engagements could “undermine Department-wide priorities.” But what’s really happening is the silencing of dissent, the restriction of transparency, and a concerning attempt to control the flow of information between the military and the elected officials who are supposed to oversee it. It’s a blatant power grab.
This directly clashes with established legal principles. The U.S. Code, specifically 5 U.S. Code § 7211, explicitly protects the right of employees to petition Congress or furnish information to it. This isn’t just a matter of protocol; it’s a fundamental right. Hegseth’s order is essentially trying to sidestep this right, creating an environment where military officials might fear retribution for communicating with their representatives.
The immediate practical effect of this policy is likely to be a massive bureaucratic logjam. Think about the sheer volume of communication that occurs daily between military personnel and lawmakers across the country. Every single interaction now needs pre-approval? This means that even seemingly routine communications would be filtered through a single office. This is bound to create significant delays, and it could severely limit the ability of Congress to get timely information.
There’s a strong suspicion this action might be taken to hide something, or prepare for something. It is a clear attempt to control the narrative. We’re left wondering what exactly they’re trying to hide. Are there issues the military wants to keep out of the public eye? Are there sensitive plans they want to keep away from Congress? The timing of this directive, and the boldness with which it’s being implemented, suggest something of major importance.
One immediate fear is a complete lack of oversight. If military officials are discouraged from speaking with Congress, the checks and balances that are supposed to exist are weakened. It’s hard not to see this as a step towards eroding civilian control of the military. It sets a dangerous precedent. The concern, as it has always been, is what happens when those in power start to believe they are above the law.
The reactions within the military itself are sure to be mixed. While some might fall in line, there will likely be many, especially those who value their oath to the Constitution, who will view this as an overreach. The question is how they will respond. Will they be willing to risk their careers to stand up for the principles of transparency and accountability?
This directive is particularly troubling when you consider that the current administration has, at times, demonstrated a willingness to bend or break legal norms. The question now becomes: how far will they go? When you see this level of control being exerted, it’s fair to wonder what is actually planned.
The consequences could be far-reaching. The order could also discourage whistleblowers from coming forward. If military personnel know they could face repercussions for speaking out, they are less likely to report wrongdoing or raise concerns about policy. This is very frightening, as it goes against one of the core principles of any democracy.
The potential for abuse is glaring. Imagine a scenario where a soldier is trying to report waste, fraud, or abuse. Now imagine that the soldier has to get permission to do so. In the current climate, that approval might never come, and the wrongdoing goes unaddressed. The very act of asking for permission might, in itself, be a form of censorship.
This also seems to go against the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which included a grievance against King George III for rendering the military independent of the civil power. This feels eerily familiar. The order feels more like an effort to insulate themselves from scrutiny and possibly to prepare for a “contingency plan.”
The potential for pushback, both from within the military and from members of Congress, is considerable. Will Republican lawmakers allow themselves to be cut off from information? Will they stand by and let a mid-level manager limit their access to crucial information about military operations? Their response will be crucial.
The fact that this directive is coming down from the top suggests that this is not a rogue move by a few individuals. This is a deliberate, calculated effort to consolidate power and control information. That’s a huge problem.
In summary, Hegseth’s order represents a significant threat to the principles of transparency, accountability, and civilian control of the military. It’s an attempt to silence dissent, control the narrative, and potentially to undermine the checks and balances that are essential to a healthy democracy. It’s a move that should alarm anyone who values the rule of law.