The Washington Post’s latest attempt to discredit Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has become an embarrassment for the embattled outlet after its reporting was called into question by a New York Times story published on Monday. Two of the Wapo’s “decorated” national-security correspondents, Alex Horton and Ellen Nakashima, published a front-page exclusive alleging that Hegseth verbally ordered U.S. forces to “kill everybody” aboard a suspected narco-trafficking vessel during a September 2nd special-operations strike in the Caribbean. The Post’s correspondents claim two anonymous officials with “direct knowledge” of the operation informed them that a second strike to finish off drug traffickers that survived was done to comply with a no-quarter directive from Hegseth that potentially violated rules of engagement.
On Monday, the New York Times published a detailed report that directly undercut the Post’s story. Citing five U.S. officials familiar with the operation (all granted anonymity because of the ongoing congressional inquiry), the Times reported that Hegseth’s actual guidance was limited to pre-strike authorization for a “lethal kinetic operation” to destroy the vessel and its cargo. There was no mention of survivors and no order to “kill everybody.” Once the strike began, Hegseth gave no further instructions; the decision-making on the second engagement fell entirely to Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley on the scene, who judged the remaining individuals still posed a threat. That account aligns with the White House and Pentagon’s flat denials from the start of this controversy. The Times’ reporting has on-the-record information from multiple sources inside the chain of command, while the Post’s version, built on just two anonymous officials and no independent corroboration, has lost all credibility.
What began as a blockbuster accusation has quickly become the latest example of a legacy outlet peddling an inflammatory narrative that doesn’t survive even basic scrutiny from its own peers. The timing for this debacle couldn’t have been more poetic, as it serves as a stark backdrop for why the Pentagon’s updated press-credential policy isn’t a threat to journalism. It’s a response to a credibility crisis in the legacy media, where anonymously-sourced bombshells prioritize partisan narrative over verification, eroding public trust and demanding more seats at the table for fresh voices in journalism. Perhaps worst of all, it delegitimizes America and the men and women who serve it.
This isn’t the first time the Washington Post has run fake news, and it won’t be the last. They’re one of the main reasons why trust in the news media has plummeted to historic lows. Gallup’s most recent survey shows only 28 percent of Americans express confidence in the press, with just 11 percent of Republicans and 12 percent of independents believing what they read. These aren’t fleeting dips; they stem from three decades of high-profile lies.
The Wapo’s Hegseth hitpiece, fueled by unnamed officials and zero on-the-record corroboration, is far too common in the national security apparatus. In fact, as I pointed out recently, the Iraq war was launched on a false pretense just like this.
In fact, the Washington Post’s own role in the run-up to the Iraq War is a disgrace. Between 2002 and 2003, the paper published more than 140 front-page stories (almost all sourced to anonymous intelligence officials) that Saddam Hussein possessed active weapons of mass destruction.
Fast forward less than two decades, and the Post was at it again. In June 2020, it published a series of breathless articles, once more reliant on anonymous intelligence sources, claiming Russia had paid Taliban-linked militants bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan. U.S. military investigators later found those allegations lacked corroborating evidence and could not be tied to a single American casualty, yet the damage was done, inflaming calls for confrontation with Moscow at the height of an election year. The same playbook (unverifiable leaks, alarming headlines, zero accountability when the story collapses) has now been deployed against Pete Hegseth, proving the Post has not learned a thing in twenty years.
Enter New Media
When the Pentagon rolled out new guidelines expanding credentials to outlets with proven reach and editorial independence, the outcry was swift and selective. CNN decried “clamping down” on non-compliant reporters. The Guardian warned of “far-right interlopers.” The New York Times bemoaned “restrictions designed to stifle.” Yet none grappled with the policy’s legal guardrails: It doesn’t override Supreme Court precedents like New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), which shields journalists from punishment for publishing classified material they didn’t steal, or Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), protecting broadcast of lawfully obtained public-interest info even from illegal sources.
In fact, the DoW told RedState that attorneys representing the disgruntled former Pentagon reporters were satisfied with the new language in the policy until media executives nixed the negotiation.
The freakout hinges on omission, much like the Washington Post’s smear job relies on misinformation hiding behind anonymity. The double standards are glaring. In late 2023, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin underwent secret prostate cancer surgery, failed to notify President Biden or the chain of command for days, and sparked a national-security breach. The press response? Muted. President Biden declared “complete confidence” in Austin, and that was the end. The saga was quickly framed as a mere lapse in judgment. Under Pete Hegseth, the same corporate media outlets treat every routine DoW development as an existential threat.
Thanks to the Washington Post’s latest anonymously sourced hack accusation, many Americans have been tricked into thinking a war crimes scandal might be afoot despite the revelations from the Times that directly contradict their claims.
The pattern repeats on other matters like military recruiting. Austin’s Pentagon missed its goals by 25 percent in 2022 and 15 percent in 2023, the worst shortfalls since the draft ended, yet coverage was sympathetic. The Washington Post called it a “complex challenge” tied to a strong economy and COVID aftereffects. NPR praised Austin’s “innovative outreach” efforts at modernization.
Today, with shortfalls of similar magnitude under Hegseth, the same numbers are suddenly evidence of “ideological purges,” “extremist infiltration,” and “MAGA loyalty tests.” Same data, opposite spin. I have felt this bias personally. Days after I received Pentagon credentials as RedState’s correspondent, the George Soros-funded Arizona Mirror published a hit piece claiming I have “no background in journalism.” The writer never contacted me, a clear violation of Society of Professional Journalists ethics, and ignored a decade of work that includes nationally cited investigations, a print-magazine cover story, and interviews with elected officials that have reached tens of millions of viewers. After a legal threat, they retracted and corrected their “story” with accurate information.
Total disgrace, just like the Washington Post.
The new Pentagon press policy does none of the things its critics claim. It does not revoke existing credentials, impose ideological tests, or give the Secretary veto power over published content. It simply expands the press pool to include outlets with proven audience reach and editorial independence outside of corporate interest. What legacy outlets truly fear is not less access, but more accountability. For years, they have served as the preferred megaphone for anonymous intelligence leaks, especially when those leaks target Republican administrations.
My own path to the Pentagon press room did not run through elite journalism schools or legacy internships. It was built in the national semifinal rounds of policy debate at Texas Tech and years coaching at the University of Oregon, training that demands rapid evidence evaluation, anticipation of counterarguments, and clarity under pressure. That background led to my involvement in investigations that exposed suppressed DARPA gain-of-function records, viral tough interviews with elected officials from both parties, and documented cartel hostage operations on American soil. The American public is tired of stenographers who parrot leaks. They want reporters who verify before they vilify and who apply the same standard to every administration. New media is not an attack on journalism. It is the best chance in a generation to restore it.