A reporter covering national security for The Epoch Times has resigned following the newspaper’s decision to comply with new Pentagon reporting restrictions that many media outlets view as a threat to press freedom.

Andrew Thornebrooke, who frequently wrote about defense and intelligence matters, submitted his resignation last Friday. Although he did not hold an active Pentagon press credential, he regularly reported on issues connected to the Department of Defense and often gathered information from within the Pentagon complex itself.

In a resignation email obtained by The New York Times, Thornebrooke criticized the publication’s choice to sign a pledge agreeing to the Pentagon’s new access rules, calling it an abandonment of journalistic duty. “By signing this pledge, we have abdicated our responsibility as journalists in favor of merely repeating state narratives,” he wrote.

He also pointed to a recent internal directive requiring reporters to refer to the far-left movement known as Antifa as a “terrorist organization,” a label not supported under current U.S. law. The change was issued shortly after President Donald Trump signed an executive order identifying Antifa as a terrorist group.

“I can no longer reconcile my role with the direction the paper has chosen,” Thornebrooke said, citing an increasing tendency to publish partisan content, alter factual reporting, and mislead readers to promote a particular worldview.

The Epoch Times and Its Political Position

The Epoch Times, founded by members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement in China, operates both an online news platform and a weekly print edition distributed across the United States. The paper is known for its sharp criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, its support of conservative politics, and its backing of Trump-era policies. It has also faced scrutiny for spreading unverified information and politically charged narratives.

The outlet joined two other conservative media organizations—One America News Network and The Federalist—in signing the 21-page pledge that lays out new rules for journalists working inside the Pentagon. Several freelancers and independent reporters also agreed to the terms, but most mainstream outlets refused.

In a statement published Friday, Editor-in-Chief Jasper Fakkert defended the decision. “The Epoch Times does not view the new guidelines for Pentagon press access as an impediment to our reporting,” he said, adding that the Pentagon’s policy “is no such attack” on freedom of the press.

Controversial Rules Limiting Press Access

The new Department of Defense regulations restrict where journalists can move within the Pentagon without an escort. They also warn that reporters may lose their credentials if they solicit information from government employees who are not authorized to speak publicly.

Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have described the policy as “common sense,” but media-law experts argue it threatens fundamental reporting practices and could chill whistleblowing. Dozens of journalists from major outlets—including The Washington Post, Fox News, Newsmax, and The New York Times—refused to sign the pledge. Last Wednesday, many returned their Pentagon credentials in protest, saying the restrictions undermine their ability to inform the public.

A Reporter’s Ethical Dilemma

In interviews following his resignation, Thornebrooke described himself as politically independent, having voted for both Republicans and Democrats. When he joined The Epoch Times full-time in 2021, he said editors assured him the organization aimed to pursue more balanced, credible journalism. He began by covering China—one of the outlet’s core beats—before relocating to Washington in 2023 to report on national security.

Over time, he said, those assurances faded. After the U.S. Justice Department indicted The Epoch Times’ chief financial officer in 2023 for allegedly laundering about $67 million through company accounts, internal attitudes shifted. The chief executive resigned soon afterward, and top editors reportedly characterized the paper as being in an “adversarial” stance toward the Biden administration.

According to Thornebrooke, newsroom transparency deteriorated. Reporters were not allowed to see final versions of their stories before publication—an unusual practice for a professional newsroom. He alleged that editors sometimes removed accurate information and inserted false details to present the Trump administration in a more favorable light. He also said journalists were excluded from decisions on major editorial matters, such as the Pentagon pledge, which staff learned about only after the public statement appeared online.

Internal Tensions Over the Antifa Label

Thornebrooke also raised concerns about the new internal guidance on referring to Antifa. On September 30, staff members received a text message announcing a change in the organization’s style guide. The update instructed writers to call Antifa “a far-left extremist group that originated under the Soviet Union and functioned as the violent wing of Germany’s Communist Party to target political rivals.”

Experts note that Antifa is not a formal organization—it has no central leadership, unified structure, or verified connection to the German Communist Party before World War II. After some reporters objected, editors modified the style guide to describe Antifa as “a far-left extremist group designated as a domestic terrorism organization by the Trump administration,” even though U.S. law does not recognize domestic terrorism designations.

On Friday, editors held a video call to discuss both the Pentagon pledge and the Antifa terminology. In a recording reviewed by The New York Times, an editor defended the Pentagon’s guidelines, saying that access to report from inside a military facility was “a huge privilege” rather than a right.

A Broader Debate About Media Independence

The episode underscores a growing divide in American journalism over the balance between national security and the public’s right to know. Critics of the Pentagon’s policy argue that restricting unsupervised access and criminalizing routine sourcing could discourage investigative reporting on defense spending, military conduct, or internal misconduct.

Civil-liberties advocates also warn that such rules, if accepted by major outlets, might embolden other federal agencies to impose similar limits on media access. For smaller or ideologically driven publications, the temptation to comply for continued access can be strong, leading to what some describe as “voluntary censorship.”

The resignation also revives discussion about the role of partisanship in media organizations. The Epoch Times rose to prominence during the Trump administration, expanding its digital presence through social media and YouTube advertising campaigns that promoted conservative causes. Supporters praise it for challenging the Chinese government and defending religious freedom, while detractors accuse it of amplifying misinformation and blurring the line between journalism and advocacy.

Press Freedom at a Crossroads

Thornebrooke’s decision to leave reflects a personal and professional conflict familiar to many reporters navigating politically polarized newsrooms. For journalists committed to factual accuracy, the combination of editorial manipulation and external pressure from government institutions can be untenable.

Legal scholars note that the Pentagon’s new rules echo earlier attempts by federal agencies to control access through credentialing systems—methods that courts have occasionally found unconstitutional when used to punish critical reporting. Whether media organizations will mount a successful legal challenge remains uncertain, but the widespread refusal to sign suggests a collective resistance.

In the meantime, Thornebrooke says he remains committed to independent journalism. He has expressed interest in continuing to cover national security issues, but under conditions that allow for editorial integrity and open scrutiny of government policy.

Implications for the Future of Journalism

The dispute highlights the tension between access and autonomy in the digital-age newsroom. As government institutions tighten information controls and partisan outlets compete for audience attention, journalists face increasing pressure to align their reporting with institutional narratives—whether political or commercial.

The episode at The Epoch Times serves as a case study in how newsroom culture, corporate interests, and ideological alignment can collide. For readers, it raises questions about how to distinguish genuine reporting from propaganda. For journalists, it is a reminder that credibility, once compromised, is difficult to rebuild.

As the debate over Pentagon media access continues, the resignation of one reporter may seem minor. Yet it reflects a broader struggle over truth, transparency, and independence in American journalism—a struggle that shows no sign of fading anytime soon.