[vlucas]

Does anyone have a link to the actual rules/document they are asked to sign? I clicked on the "new rules" link in the article linked here, and it doesn't actually show all the rules.

While it's nice to see the reaction from one side, I'd like to be able to balance that against the actual text of the document myself.

[ndiddy]

Here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/20/us/pentagon-p...

The most draconian new rule is that it bars the press from reporting any information unless they get it approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official. This would basically turn the press into a PR mouthpiece for the Dept of War.

[rufus_foreman]

>> it bars the press from reporting any information unless they get it approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official

No, the rules don't pertain to reporting any information, they pertain to unauthorized reporting of two specific classifications of information, "CNSI" (Classified National Security Information) and "CUI" (Controlled Unclassified Information). And they don't bar reporting the information, they say that someone who reports the information could lose their access to the Pentagon.

CNSI is "information on the national defense and foreign relations of the United States, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism, that has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or any predecessor order, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and is marked to indicate its classified status when in documentary form".

CUI is "unclassified information the United States Government creates or possesses that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls limiting its distribution to those with a lawful government purpose. CUI may not be released to the public absent further review.

The DoD CUI Program, established through Executive Order 13556, standardizes the safeguarding of information across multiple categories. For example, CUI categories exist to protect Privacy Act information, attorney-client privileged information, and controlled technical information, among many others."

[dragonwriter]

The Department of Defense is the legal name. The Department of War is a propaganda nickname.

[xethos]

You've got that backwards. Originally stemming from the War Department, the "Department of Defense" is a cuddly name so Americans can feel better about, and potentially ignore, being warmongers.

[dragonwriter]

> You've got that backwards

No, I don't. The legal name of the Department headed by Pete Hegseth is the Department of Defense, and it is the only name that entity has ever had.

> Originally stemming from the War Department

This a somewhat popular myth, resurgent recently because it is expressly part of the narrative of the Trump Administration and therefore the MAGA cult, but its false. The Department of War is the predecessor of the modern Departments of the Army and Air Force which it was split into, not the Department of Defense, which was created ex nihilo to be placed over the existing military departments at the same time one of those department s was being split.

Originally, the US (following the British model, which also persisted until just after WWII) had two separate defense edtablishments, the Department of War (responsible for the Army) and Department of the Navy (responsible for the Navy and Marine Corps); after WWII a combined defense establishment was created above those, but at the same time it was created, the Air Force was split off from the Army and the War Department was split into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force, which is why the Department of Defense is the only cabinet level department with subordinate entities also called “departments”.

[bigbadfeline]

Are you saying this illegal?

https://www.war.gov

[dragonwriter]

I am saying that it is not the legal name of the Department. As far as I know its not illegal to refer to it as the Department of War, the Fighty Bunch, or Bob, but it is weirdly unprofessional to just start calling givernment departments by random made up names that aren’t what they are specified as in law.

[psunavy03]

I'm sorry, I thought the Secretary of Defense looked down on people using preferred pronouns.

[jjfoooo4]

> most draconian new rule

aka the entire point of the exercise. The innocuous components are there so that the Dept of Defense can claim that it's those minor items the press is objecting to, without having to defend the actual substantive policy change.