No, Mr. Secretary, America doesn’t need an actual patriotic press
No, Mr. Secretary, America doesn’t need an actual patriotic press
by Jared O. Bell
As the U.S.- and Israel-led war continues to expand, its justifications have grown thinner and its timeline more elusive. At the same time, the Trump administration appears increasingly eager to rein in unfavorable coverage. During a Pentagon press briefing on March 13, 2026, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth urged journalists to adopt more favorable framing of the conflict, telling reporters, “Here’s a real headline for you, for an actual patriotic press… ‘Iran shrinking, going underground.’” Hegseth’s quip implies that coverage of Iran which questions the administration’s actions or portrays them in an unflattering light is somehow unpatriotic.
The pressure to report the “right” things did not stop there. FCC Chair Brendan Carr warned that broadcasters airing what he called “hoaxes and news distortions” about the war could face consequences during license renewals. To many in the media, the message was unmistakable: outlets could pay a price if their reporting strayed too far from the administration’s preferred narrative.
The moment recalls the early days of the 2003 Iraq War, when similar expectations took hold. A press corps unwilling to report favorably on the invasion was quickly labeled unpatriotic or accused of failing to “support the troops.” The atmosphere of the time was thick with fear and urgency. Many Americans still remember the color-coded terror alerts flashing across television screens, orange, red, and yellow warnings that seemed to rise and fall alongside U.S. military operations in Iraq. Whether intentional or not, the effect was clear: criticism of the war was cast as reckless, irresponsible, even disloyal.
Yet this effort to shape the press predates Iraq. During the Nixon administration, the White House compiled an “enemies list,” surveilled journalists, and sought to discredit outlets that challenged its narrative about the Vietnam War. Decades later, the Bush administration fostered a similar climate in the runup to Iraq, when dissenting voices were marginalized and questioning the case for war was seen as undermining national unity. Today’s calls for a “patriotic press” echo that troubling lineage, one in which loyalty to government quietly replaces the press’s constitutional duty to hold it accountable.
It is revealing that the same week Hegseth made his remarks, the Iranian regime tightened its own grip on what can be said about the war. Authorities censored reporting and threatened those spreading information deemed unfavorable to the government or war effort. Threatening to punish anyone deemed as disloyal. Iran is not unique in this approach. Countries like North Korea rely entirely on state?controlled media to glorify leaders and justify policy. When information flows are tightly controlled, the press becomes a tool of the state rather than a check on it. Surely the United States does not wish to take a page from the very regimes it claims moral superiority over.
Complaining about the press has long been a hallmark of Donald Trump and his inner circle. But grumbling about coverage is one thing; making thinly veiled threats against journalists and media outlets is another. That shift should alarm every American who still believes in preserving the democratic culture and constitutional traditions that have long defined the nation.
This rhetoric is especially concerning at a time when the U.S. has slipped in global press freedom rankings. In the 2024 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, the United States ranked 55th out of 180 countries, a decline from roughly 46th place a decade ago. The index cites rising hostility toward journalists, political attacks on media institutions, and a deteriorating environment for independent reporting.
As the administration increasingly uses social media platforms such as Truth Social and other partisan ecosystems to amplify narratives that blur the line between fact and fiction, and as artificial intelligence accelerates the spread of convincing misinformation, the role of a free and independent press becomes even more vital. In an era saturated with manipulation and competing realities, independent journalism remains one of the last institutional safeguards for the freedoms Americans claim to cherish, including free expression and fair elections.
So no, Mr. Secretary, America neither wants, nor needs an “actual patriotic press.” The central purpose of a free press is not to serve the government but to scrutinize it. Journalism functions as one of democracy’s essential checks on power, asking uncomfortable questions and challenging official narratives when necessary. Complaints about unfavorable coverage do not change that responsibility. A press that simply praises those in power is not patriotic; it is propaganda.
Without a truly independent press, the United States risks drifting toward the very model of information control practiced by the despotic regimes it criticizes, a bleak reality no American should wish to contemplate. Now more than ever, defending press freedom requires vigilance, solidarity, and an unwavering commitment to truth.
~~~~~~~~
Jared O. Bell, PhD, syndicated with PeaceVoice, is a former U.S. diplomat and scholar of human rights and transitional justice, dedicated to advancing global equity and systemic reform.
peacevoice