In another section of the course on insider threats, the media is labeled adversaries and Defense Department personnel are instructed to report any contact with the press to their “information security office.”
Orland noted that the training highlights that media personnel are not generally considered a threat, however, “their actions to collect and report classified / private information can be just as damaging.”
Price Floyd, who served as acting assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in the Obama administration and director of media relations at the State Department in the George W. Bush administration, also criticized the DoD’s new policy on operational security and response. to leaks.
“I think this administration is confusing leaks with written stories they don’t like,” said Floyd. “Because this administration, of course, gives information to the press without attribution all the time. In other words, they are leaking. They want the stories the way they want them. “
He also questioned the way the training course is framed, arguing that, in his experience, he incorrectly portrays the general relationship between the military and the media.
“If for some reason a journalist found out about something that was classified or secret, all it would take would be a conversation with public affairs and someone saying, ‘Look at this is classified, it’s secret, talking about it now puts lives at risk.’ “
“I think this witch hunt by Esper is just a way to try to suppress what they see as fake news,” he added, “when in reality all the media is doing is reporting the facts.”
Mick Mulroy, an ABC News analyst who served as the Pentagon’s Middle East policy official in the Trump administration, said he does not believe the Defense Department has attempted to label all protesters and journalists as threats, but he qualified the language. in training materials such as “poor word choice”. ”
“‘Adversary’ is a loaded term, we use it to define Russia, for example,” Mulroy said, making a distinction between protesters and journalists who properly exercise their constitutional rights with “protesters who use violence against the military or service members who leaked classified information. ”
“However, in this climate of media labeling as a threat to people and protesters, all grouped together (both violent and non-violent), the military will want to make sure they are not adding to the problem with this type of terminology.” . said. “I don’t think they intended to do that with this choice of terms, but it should be adjusted.”
OPSEC’s new effort launched just weeks after Esper told lawmakers in a hearing that an investigation had begun to investigate the leaks, after a New York Times Intelligence report that Russia was paying militants to attack US forces in Afghanistan.
The leaks “harm the security of our nation, undermine our troops, their security, affect our relations with other countries, undermine our national policy,” Esper told lawmakers this month. “It is something we need to control. It is bad and it is illegal and it must stop.”
A separate memorandum released at the same time as the first one set new guidelines for force when interacting with members of the media.
Bryan Bender contributed to this report.
