The Office of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has circulated expanded guidance requiring Defense Department personnel to seek prior approval before engaging with Congress on a wide range of topics, including "sensitive military operations" and U.S. strikes on suspected drug boats around Latin America, people familiar with the directive said. The measure follows confusion over an earlier memo that barred virtually all Defense Department staff, including military commanders, from speaking with members of Congress or state lawmakers without authorization from the department’s office of legislative affairs.

The step tightens internal controls on communications at a moment when U.S. maritime counter-narcotics efforts have drawn increased congressional attention and scrutiny from regional partners. Lawmakers typically rely on testimony and briefings from military leaders to evaluate the legality, effectiveness and strategic consequences of U.S. operations abroad; the new requirement for pre-approval could slow or restrict that flow of information.

A Pentagon spokesman told CNN that the memo is a “pragmatic step to internally review the Department’s processes for communicating with Congress.” The characterization frames the action as administrative housekeeping, but lawmakers and oversight specialists may view it as a substantive change with implications for accountability.

The directive explicitly encompassing strikes on suspected drug vessels in Latin American waters touches on several complex intersections of law and diplomacy. U.S. interdiction and strike actions at sea often balance operational secrecy, safety and the need to respect the sovereignty of coastal states. For congressional overseers, access to factual briefings and legal assessments is essential to determine whether missions comply with domestic statutes, appropriation requirements and international law governing the use of force in maritime settings.

Regional governments and populations are likely to take note. Latin American leaders have historically been sensitive to unilateral U.S. military activity in or near their maritime zones, and restrictions on the U.S. Defense Department's ability to explain such actions may feed concerns about opacity and unilateralism. The potential diplomatic fallout could complicate existing partnerships in counter-narcotics intelligence-sharing and joint interdiction efforts, where trust and transparency are critical.

Within the Pentagon, the policy may also affect commanders at sea and staff who traditionally respond to congressional inquiries or participate in classified briefings. Advocates of tighter controls argue that centralized approval reduces the risk of inadvertent disclosures that could jeopardize operations or personnel. Critics counter that it creates a chilling effect on candor and may hinder timely congressional oversight, especially in the aftermath of incidents that require immediate explanation.

The directive follows a broader pattern of tension between the executive branch’s operational security imperatives and Congress’s constitutional oversight role. How that tension is managed will shape legislative debates over funding, authorizations for use of force and reporting requirements for overseas operations. For partners in Latin America, the issue amplifies concerns about transparency and legal accountability for actions that carry both human and geopolitical consequences.

As the Pentagon refines its internal review processes, lawmakers, regional governments and civil society groups will be watching closely to see whether the new approval regime preserves essential oversight without unduly constraining information flow about sensitive operations.