Freedom of the Press

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, Dec. 18, 2025 — Photojournalist Dave Decker was arrested in November while documenting a protest in Miami, Florida. A coalition of 23 press organizations spoke out against the charges — and this week the prosecutor agreed.

The following statement can be attributed to Adam Rose, deputy director of advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF):

“Journalists have a distinct role at protests. They are not participants, merely observers. A broad local and national coalition said this in unison, and we were glad to see all charges dropped against Dave Decker. Hats off to his attorneys, lawyers for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office, and all the community groups who rallied to his side.

“At the same time, that’s a lot of people who had to work on something entirely preventable. I hope law enforcement officers take this to heart: Swearing an oath to protect the community means protecting everyone — including press. This is an opportunity for agencies like the sheriff’s office and Florida Highway Patrol to take proactive steps and review training approaches. Freedom of the Press Foundation is happy to help.

“And of course, it would be nice to see an apology to Dave and an offer to fix any of his equipment they damaged.”

Read the coalition’s letter:

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 268 days for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like, and journalist Ya’akub Vijandre remains locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over social media posts about issues he reported on.

Join us today and Dec. 21 in New York City for two special screenings of the Oscar-shortlisted film “Cover-Up” by Laura Poitras — an FPF founding board member — and Mark Obenhaus.

Read on for more on what we’re working on this week. We’ll be back in the new year.

Covering protests is a dangerous job for journalists

As of Dec. 15, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented 32 detainments or charges against journalists in the U.S. — 28 of those at immigration-related protests — according to a new report released by the Freedom of Press Foundation (FPF) project this week.

The report notes how, unlike most years, the majority of journalists were released without charges or had them soon dropped, with law enforcement instead focusing on deterring news gathering rather than pursuing charges.

• Read the report

Stop the deportation of Heng Guan

Use our action center to tell lawmakers to stop the Trump administration from deporting Heng Guan, who helped journalists expose the horrors of Uyghur prison camps in Xinjiang, China. He’s exactly the kind of person asylum laws are intended to protect.

The next hearing in Guan’s case is Jan. 12. He could be sent to Uganda, placing him at risk of being shipped back to China, where, according to his mother, he’d likely be killed.

• Write a letter to Congress

Join our email list to stay up to date on the issues and learn how you can help protect journalists and sources everywhere.

Thanks for signing up for our newsletter. You are not yet subscribed! Please check your email for a message asking you to confirm your subscription.

The FCC’s declaration of dependence

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr admitted at a Senate hearing on Wednesday that there had been a political “sea change” and he no longer viewed the FCC as an independent agency.

FPF Director of Advocacy Seth Stern wrote for The Guardian that Carr’s admission proves the danger of letting a self-proclaimed partisan weaponize the FCC’s public interest standard to grant himself amorphous censorship powers. “Carr avoids ever articulating his vision of public-interest news, forcing anyone seeking to avoid his ire to play ‘Whac-A-Mole.’ … The only discernible rule of Carr’s FCC is ’don’t piss off Trump’.”

• Read the op-ed here

Trump’s BBC lawsuit is nonsense, like his others

President Donald Trump on Monday followed through on his threats to sue the BBC over its editing of his remarks on Jan. 6, 2021, for a documentary.

“If any ordinary person filed as many frivolous multibillion-dollar lawsuits as Donald Trump, they’d be sanctioned and placed on a restricted filers list,” FPF said in a statement, noting that Trump has demanded a total of $65 billion in damages from media outlets since taking office.

• Read the statement

Under First Amendment, Diddy ‘can’t stop, won’t stop’ Netflix documentary

Sean “Diddy” Combs is threatening to sue Netflix for airing a docuseries that is, to say the least, unflattering to him. The disgraced music mogul’s cease-and-desist letter claims the series, “Sean Combs: The Reckoning,” uses “stolen footage.”

Stern wrote for Rolling Stone about why Diddy’s threatened lawsuit would be a non-starter: the right to publish content that sources obtain illegally is well established. But a series of recent cases nonetheless puts that right under unprecedented attack.

• Read the article

Body camera footage is for the public

The town of Hamburg, New York, claims its police body camera footage is copyrighted despite being a public record. It’s telling people who request footage under New York’s Freedom of Information Law that they can’t share the footage with others.

That’s ridiculous, and we wrote a letter to the police chief telling him to stop the nonsense and tell anyone who has received these frivolous warnings that they’re free to share body camera footage as they see fit.

• Read it here

Ask Lauren anything

FPF Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper joined fellow Freedom of Information Act experts Jason Leopold, ​​Liz Hempowicz, and Kevin Bell to take questions about FOIA and the numerous ways that it’s broken. They teamed up for a Reddit “ask me anything” discussion this week.

• Read the Q&A

Free screening of “Cover-Up”

To our New York audiences and documentary film buffs: FPF is proud to host a special screening tonight of the Oscar-shortlisted film “Cover-Up” by award-winning directors Laura Poitras and Mark Obenhaus, followed by a Q&A moderated by our executive director, Trevor Timm. The film chronicles the career of legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

• Learn more here

It’s shameful the Department of Defense is curtailing press access five decades after the Supreme Court’s Pentagon Papers ruling, Harper told NPR’s “1A.” Harper also joined “1A” to discuss how the Trump administration is enhancing its surveillance capabilities.

That TikTok remains available “makes a mockery” of the government’s earlier national security claims that the platform was “an urgent national security risk – and of the court that deferred to those claims.”

“‘Chilling effect’ does not begin to describe the neutering of our political coverage,” said one former KCBS journalist about the aftermath of Carr’s threats.

Read the op-ed we co-wrote with partner organizations demanding the FCC recommit to the First Amendment.

Stern explained, “Throwing out the credibility of CNN and other Warner Bros Discovery holdings might benefit the Ellisons in their efforts to curry favour with Trump, but it’s not going to benefit anyone else, including shareholders.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, Dec. 16, 2025 — President Donald Trump on Monday followed through on his threats to sue the BBC over its editing of his remarks on Jan. 6, 2021, for a documentary.

The following can be attributed to Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF):

“If any ordinary person filed as many frivolous multibillion-dollar lawsuits as Donald Trump, they’d be sanctioned and placed on a restricted filers list. By my count, Trump has demanded at least $65 billion in damages from media outlets in lawsuits filed since his second term started — almost nine times his current estimated net worth, according to Forbes.

“The U.S. has laws in place to restrict litigation by prisoners, the most powerless people in our society, because of their supposed propensity to file bad faith litigation. Meanwhile, the most powerful man in the world gets away with filing more nonsense lawsuits than practically anyone, incarcerated or otherwise.

“Perhaps the interview edit in question wasn’t the BBC’s best work. The BBC has acknowledged that. But U.S. defamation law is compensatory, not punitive. You don’t get to call out any alleged journalistic blunder and demand $10 billion.

“It’s preposterous for Trump to claim those damages when he won the 2024 election and hasn’t lost a penny because of the BBC’s editing. It’s also absurd for him to claim associating him with January 6 is defamatory after he spent years insisting nothing bad happened that day and then pardoned those involved. And it’s similarly outrageous that his claims are based on supposedly damaging implications of his using the word “fight.” He sells T-shirts with that word on them.

“Putting aside the incoherence of Trump claiming election interference damages for an election he won, his damages theory also concedes that he views the presidency as a personal profit-making venture.

“Fortunately for the BBC, we’ve seen this movie before. Caving to Trump gets you nothing. Plus, Trump’s hand is considerably weaker than in the past — his authoritarian censorship antics are increasingly unpopular. People are tired of his thin-skinned bully tactics. The only way for the BBC to preserve its journalistic integrity is to fight back.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

As of Dec. 15, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented 32 detainments or charges against journalists in the U.S. — 28 of those at immigration-related protests — according to a new report released by the Freedom of Press Foundation (FPF) project this week.

The report notes how, unlike most years, the majority of journalists were released without charges or had them soon dropped, with law enforcement instead focusing on deterring news gathering rather than pursuing charges.

• Read the Tracker's 2025 arrest report

Tracker Senior Reporter Stephanie Sugars, who authored the report, said it was “shocking” to see the sharp increase in the number of journalists released without being charged.

“While perhaps a sign that officers know the journalists cannot be charged as protesters, each detention pulls eyes and ears from often chaotic protest scenes, and that may well be the point,” Sugars said.

For journalist Dave Decker, being arrested at an anti-deportation demonstration in Miami last month and held in custody for more than 30 hours was a way to “put the brakes on press freedom,” he told the Tracker.

“News is only news for a couple of hours, when it’s breaking like that,” Decker said. “I would say that there were no wires out there, there were no local people, there were no stand-ups, no TV, no helicopter. There was none of that there. So I was literally the only journalist out there. They effectively stopped the news from getting out.”

In 2025, more than 30 journalists were detained or charged for doing their jobs.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 262 days for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like, and journalist Ya’akub Vijandre remains locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over social media posts about issues he reported on. Read on for more on what we’re working on this week.

Stop the gatekeeping. The First Amendment’s for all of us

In the early days of the internet, online news confused analog-era judges, who pondered questions like, “If this is journalism then why are there no ink smudges on my fingers?” These days, First Amendment advocates tend to chuckle when thinking back on that era. But apparently it’s not quite over yet.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus wrote for the Sun-Sentinel about a judge in Florida’s unfortunate ruling that YouTube-based outlet Popcorned Planet can’t avail itself of the state’s reporter’s privilege to oppose a subpoena from actor Blake Lively. The court’s decision would “effectively exclude any independent journalist who publishes using online platforms from relying on the privilege to protect their sources.” If it stands, “vital information will stay buried,” she explained.

And FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm spoke to Columbia Journalism Review about another subpoena from Lively that’s testing whether celebrity blogger Perez Hilton can claim the privilege. “Hilton is gathering information, talking to sources, and publishing things in order to have the public consume them. That fits the definition of a journalist,” Timm explained. As CJR noted, FPF’s U.S. Press Freedom Tracker “was one of the few to highlight the Hilton case.”

It’s not a question of whether Popcorned Planet and Hilton are great journalists or if they pass some editorial purity test. It’s a question of whether the courts will allow litigants to chip away at First Amendment rights that protect all journalists, no matter what platform they use to report or what subjects they cover.

• READ THE OP-ED

Administration is trolling America with its FOIA responses

As The New York Times reported this week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed it has no body-worn camera footage from Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago, Illinois, despite a federal judge’s explicit order that agents wear and activate those cameras.

And as The Daily Beast reported, the Department of Homeland Security told FFP’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper that Kristi Noem had no Truth Social Direct messages, despite her millions of followers. Harper requested cabinet officials’ messages in a Freedom of Information Act request after President Donald Trump accidentally publicly posted correspondence with Attorney General Pam Bondi.

As Harper told the Times, “They are trolling citizens and judges … ICE continues to feel increasing impunity and that it has the right to behave as a secret police that’s exempt from accountability.” FPF is, of course, appealing.

• READ THE NYT STORY

Don’t weaken Puerto Rico’s public records law

When the U.S. Navy quietly reactivated Roosevelt Roads Naval Station in Puerto Rico earlier this year, some residents saw the promise of new jobs, while others saw it as a painful reminder of past harms from the American military presence on the island.

Puerto Ricans — and Americans everywhere — deserve basic answers about what the military is up to as tensions escalate with Venezuela and whether Puerto Rico’s government is coordinating with the Pentagon and whether their concerns are being taken into account. And of course, there are countless local issues Puerto Ricans are entitled to be informed about.

But at the moment when transparency is most essential, lawmakers are trying to slam the door shut.

• READ MORE

Don’t just take our word for it…

Throughout 2025 we’ve been hosting online events platforming journalists impacted by anti-press policies at the national and local levels, so you can hear directly from the people we hope will benefit from our work.

Read about three of our recent events. This week’s panel features journalists whose reporting is complicated by sources unwilling to come forward due to fear of retaliation. Last week we spoke with journalists about the difficulties of covering the immigration beat during Trump 2.0, and last month we talked about the immigration cases against journalists Sami Hamdi and Ya’akub Vijandre over their support for Palestinian rights (shoutout to our friends at The Dissenter for writing up that event). And there are even more past events on our YouTube channel.

• BROWSE OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

In a comprehensive new report, Free Press’s Nora Benavidez analyzes how Trump and his political enablers have sought to undermine and chill the most basic freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

We cannot just accept that “every so often the administration is going to abduct some lawful resident who said something it doesn’t like about Israel or Palestine,” FPF’s Seth Stern told WABE.

A powerful essay by Palestinian journalist Mohammed Mhawish about life in Gaza “under Israel’s all-encompassing surveillance regime.”

Threatening to punish app stores if they don’t remove apps the government dislikes is unconstitutional. This time it’s ICEBlock, but tomorrow it could be a news app.

Many heroes work behind the scenes on press freedom. Will Lewis was one of them. A radio executive who championed public media, he spent 15 days in prison to protect sources. RIP.

Congratulations to the indefatigable National Security Archive on 40 years of clawing back the self-serving veil of government secrecy.

From national outlets to college newspapers, reporters are running into the same troubling trend: sources who are afraid to speak to journalists because they worry about retaliation from the federal government.

This fear, and how journalists can respond to it, was the focus of a recent panel discussion hosted by Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), the Association of Health Care Journalists, and the Society of Environmental Journalists. Reporters from a range of beats described how the second Trump administration has changed the way people talk to the press, and what journalists do to reassure sources and keep them safe.

For journalist Grace Hussain, a solutions correspondent at Sentient Media, this shift became unmistakable when sources who relied on federal funding suddenly backed out of participating in her reporting. “Their concerns were very legitimate,” Hussain said, “It was possible that their funding could get retracted or withdrawn” for speaking to the press.

When Hussain reached out to other reporters, she found that sources’ reluctance to speak to the press for fear of federal retaliation is an increasingly widespread issue that’s already harming news coverage. “There are a lot of stories that are under-covered, and it’s just getting more difficult at this point to do that sort of coverage with the climate that we’re in,” she said.

Lizzy Lawrence, who covers the Food and Drug Administration for Stat, has seen a different but equally unsettling pattern. Lawrence has found that more government sources want to talk about what’s happening in their agencies, but often only if they’re not named. Since Trump returned to office, she said, many sources “would request only to speak on the condition of anonymity, because of fears of being fired.” As a result, her newsroom is relying more on confidential sources, with strict guardrails, like requiring multiple sources to corroborate information.

For ProPublica reporter Sharon Lerner, who’s covered health and the environment across multiple administrations, the heightened fear is impossible to miss. Some longtime sources have cut off communication with her, including one who told her they were falsely suspected of leaking.

And yet, she added, speaking to the press may be one of the last options left for employees trying to expose wrongdoing. “So many of the avenues for federal employees to seek justice or address retaliation have been shut down,” Lerner said.

This chilling effect extends beyond federal agencies. Emily Spatz, editor-in-chief of Northeastern’s independent student newspaper The Huntington News, described how fear spread among international students after federal agents detained Mahmoud Kahlil and Rümeysa Öztürk. Visa revocations of students at Northeastern only deepened the concern.

Students started asking the newspaper to take down previously published op-eds they worried could put them at risk, a step Spatz took after careful consideration. The newsroom ultimately removed six op-eds but posted a public website documenting each removal to preserve transparency.

Even as the paper worked hard to protect sources, many became reluctant to participate in their reporting. One student, for instance, insisted the newspaper remove a photo showing the back of their head, a method the paper had used specifically to avoid identifying sources.

Harlo Holmes, the chief information security officer and director of digital security at FPF, said these patterns mirror what journalists usually experience under authoritarian regimes, but — until now — have not been seen in the United States. Whistleblowing is a “humongously heroic act,” Holmes said, “and it is not always without its repercussions.”

She urged reporters to adopt rigorous threat-modeling practices and to be transparent with sources about the tools and techniques they use to keep them safe. Whether using SecureDrop, Signal, or other encrypted channels, she said journalists should make it easy for sources to find out how to contact them securely. “A little bit of education goes a long way,” she said.

For more on how journalists are working harder than ever to protect vulnerable sources, watch the full event recording here.

As the federal government ramps up immigration enforcement, sweeping through cities, detaining citizens and noncitizens, separating families, and carrying out deportations, journalists covering immigration have had to step up their work, too.

Journalists on the immigration beat today are tasked with everything from uncovering government falsehoods to figuring out what their communities need to know and protecting their sources. Recently, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) hosted a conversation with journalists Maritza Félix, the founder and director of Conecta Arizona; Arelis Hernández, a reporter for The Washington Post; and Lam Thuy Vo, an investigative reporter with Documented. They discussed the challenges they face and shared how they report on immigration with humanity and accuracy, while keeping their sources and themselves safe.

Immigration reporting has grown a lot more difficult, explained Hernández, as sources increasingly fear retaliation from the government. “I spend a lot of time at the front end explaining, ‘Where will this go? What will it look like?’” Hernández said, describing her process of working with sources to ensure they participate in reporting knowingly and safely. She also outlined her own precautions, from using encrypted devices to carrying protective gear, highlighting just how unsafe conditions have become, even for U.S.-born reporters.

Like Hernández, Félix also emphasized the intense fear and uncertainty many immigrant sources experience. Other sources, however, may be unaware of the possible consequences of speaking to reporters and need to be protected as well. “I think when we’re talking about sources, particularly with immigration, we’re talking about people who are sharing their most vulnerable moments in their life, and I think the way that we treat it is going to be very decisive on their future,” she said.

Journalists who are themselves immigrants must also manage personal risk, Félix said, “but the risk is always going to be there just because of who we are and what we represent in this country.” She pointed to the arrest and deportation of journalist Mario Guevara in Georgia, saying it “made me think that could have been me” before she became a U.S. citizen. She recommended that newsrooms provide security training, mental health resources, and operational protocols for both staff and freelancers.

Both Félix and Vo, who work in newsrooms by and for immigrant communities, emphasized the need for journalists to actively listen to the people they cover. “If you’re trying to serve immigrants, build a listening mechanism, some kind of way of continuing to listen to both leaders in the community, service providers, but also community members,” Vo advised. She also recommended that journalists use risk assessments and threat modeling to plan how to protect themselves and their sources.

Watch the full discussion here.

When the U.S. Navy quietly reactivated Roosevelt Roads Naval Station in Puerto Rico earlier this year, the move stirred both anxiety and hope. While some residents saw the promise of new jobs, others saw it as a painful reminder of past harms from the American military presence on the island.

Whatever their views, Puerto Ricans — and Americans everywhere — deserve basic answers about what the military is up to as tensions escalate with Venezuela. They should know whether Puerto Rico’s government is coordinating with the Pentagon and whether their concerns are being taken into account. And of course, there are countless local issues having nothing to do with international conflicts that Puerto Ricans are entitled to be informed about.

But at the very moment when transparency is most essential, Puerto Rican lawmakers are trying to slam the door shut. Senate Bill 63, a major rewrite of the island’s transparency law, was recently rushed through the legislature with little public input. It weakens the public’s right to know at every turn.

SB 63 would undermine transparency

Puerto Rico’s existing transparency law, passed in 2019, already faces serious problems. Recently, for instance, the American Civil Liberties Union of Puerto Rico sued to uncover records about how the territory’s transportation agency shared confidential driver’s license information with federal immigration officials, which may have violated local laws.

SB 63 would make it even harder for the public to know what government officials are doing. The bill significantly extends the deadline for responding to records requests, more than doubling it in some cases. For time-sensitive investigations, especially by journalists, these delays could bury relevant information or make it irrelevant or obsolete, crippling efforts to expose the truth.

This bill will also make it harder for the public to understand the information they do receive. Today, requesters can ask for information in easy-to-analyze formats, like statistics or spreadsheets. SB 63 would eliminate that right, making it harder to find specific information that’s of the most use to the public.

In addition, SB 63 would require agency heads to be alerted to every single records request. This change injects politics into what should be a straightforward process. At the federal level, both Democrats and Republicans have used similar review systems to conceal politically inconvenient information.

What’s more, SB 63 would also require agencies to withhold records that any judge has previously deemed confidential, even if that ruling came from a single lower court and was never reviewed or affirmed. But judges get things wrong all the time — that’s why their rulings are not precedential and are subject to appellate review. Under SB 63, a single questionable decision from a single judge could lock in secrecy indefinitely.

SB 63 would leave Puerto Ricans and all Americans less informed

Puerto Rican lawmakers seem to know SB 63 would be unpopular. The Senate approved it without a public hearing, and the House allowed just one day of testimony, during which many entities were shut out. It’s not an accident that an anti-transparency bill was pushed through with as little transparency as possible.

The timing couldn’t be worse — and not only because Puerto Rico seems to be one of the main platforms for U.S.-projected interventions in Venezuela. As Puerto Rico faces deep challenges in housing, education, and climate, reducing access to information will only exacerbate existing problems.

The need for local transparency is heightened exponentially by Puerto Rico’s colonialism. Public records are essential for understanding issues such as failures in hurricane relief by federal and local authorities, collaboration between local agencies and federal immigration officials, and the impact of federal policies on the territory’s schools and colleges.

In addition, cuts to federal Freedom of Information Act offices are already making it harder for Puerto Ricans to obtain information from Washington. If local transparency is also weakened, oversight and accountability will become virtually nonexistent.

Fortunately, Puerto Ricans refuse to be silent. More than 50 civil society organizations, along with community and academic leaders, have urged Gov. Jenniffer González Colón to veto SB 63 because the legislation is bad for Puerto Rico’s citizens, businesses, and democracy itself.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) also joined other press freedom organizations in a letter led by the Committee to Protect Journalists, calling on her to reject the bill.

Puerto Rico can’t afford to be left in the dark. SB 63 dims the light of transparency precisely when we need it the most. Gov. González should reject SB 63 and stand unequivocally with the people’s right to know.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 255 days for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like, and journalist Ya’akub Vijandre remains locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over social media posts about issues he reported on. Read on for more ongoing battles against government suppression of the free press.

And join us today at 2 p.m. EST for a conversation with leading immigration journalists about reporting truth and protecting communities. Register here.

New York Times fights back against Pentagon prior restraint

The newspaper President Donald Trump likes to call “the failing New York Times” somehow managed to scrounge up enough pocket change to take his administration to court. The Times and its Pentagon reporter, Julian Barnes, are suing the Pentagon over its censorial policy restricting journalists from publishing unauthorized information.

As Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Executive Director Trevor Timm said, “The Pentagon’s absurd access pledge has been an affront to the First Amendment since the first day they proposed it. And we look forward to a federal judge throwing it out with the trash, where it belongs.”

• READ THE FULL STATEMENT

FPF demands court lift secrecy in Catherine Herridge’s privilege case

A federal appellate court got it wrong by requiring journalist Catherine Herridge to disclose the sources for her reporting on scientist Yangping Chen’s alleged ties to the Chinese military while an online college Chen founded received federal funds. She’s rightly seeking a rehearing.

Worse yet, the misguided ruling was informed by documents about the FBI’s investigation of Chen that were improperly filed under seal, and which the appellate court considered in a closed hearing. FPF, represented by Schaerr | Jaffe LLP, filed a motion to intervene and unseal the documents and hearing transcript.

• READ OUR PRESS RELEASE AND MOTION

Reckless federal agents are the threat, not cameras

The right to record law enforcement operations is well established. But immigration officers have repeatedly chased, assaulted, and even arrested people for recording them. This isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s dangerous.

FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus wrote for NC Newsline that “Federal agents don’t want cameras pointed at them because it can force accountability. When they lash out at people who record them, it’s not just those targeted who are in danger; everyone around them is at risk too.”

• READ MORE

U.S. journalists abducted by Israel describe abuse and U.S. indifference

FPF Deputy Director of Audience Ahmed Zidan wrote for Jacobin about the online event we hosted with Defending Rights & Dissent last month featuring three U.S. journalists who were nabbed by Israel in international waters while on aid flotillas headed to Gaza.

It should’ve been an international scandal, but the administration hardly lifted a finger. As Jewish Currents reporter Emily Wilder said, “The abuses against us demonstrate how far [the Israeli] regime will go, how emboldened it’s been, and the absolute impunity they have to act this way.”

• READ MORE

White House media bias tracker: Another tired gimmick

The White House launched a media bias tracker to catalog instances of supposedly distorted coverage. Predictably, the site is long on hyperbole and short on substance.

FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern said, “If Trump thinks the media is getting stories wrong or being unfair to him, he should release the public records, correspondence, and legal memoranda that prove it, instead of wasting time and taxpayer money on silly websites. … The gimmick is wearing thin.” Media columnist Margaret Sullivan agrees.

• READ OUR STATEMENT

Sen. Kelly: Read the boat strike memo into the Congressional Record

Sen. Mark Kelly told CNN that he has read the Justice Department’s classified legal rationale for destroying alleged drug boats and that it should be released.

Not only is the senator right, he has the power to make the document public himself, and he should do so without delay. FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy, Lauren Harper, has more.

• READ MORE

Censorship by invoice

Michigan’s Grand Blanc Township thinks it has discovered a trick to weasel out of accountability: charging a reporter more for records about a tragic church shooting than most people earn in two years.

FPF’s Stern wrote about why these tactics can’t be allowed to continue and why, rather than being deterred, reporters should take governmental evasiveness as a sign that they’re onto something.

• READ MORE

Freelance photojournalist Dave Decker was unlawfully arrested by Miami-Dade Sheriff’s deputies while documenting anti-deportation protests. Read the objection letter we joined with Florida’s First Amendment Foundation and the National Press Photographers Association.

The filmmaker and FPF’s founding board member discussed her 20-year project, the “crisis” in investigative journalism, and how truth-telling can still change the world.

As Stern explained, propaganda doesn’t work when there’s a strong local media. “People know their local reporters. They see them on the street. They rely on them. That makes it harder for the administration to control the narrative.”

CJR features our friends at First Amendment Watch’s new “SLAPP Back Initiative” to track strategic lawsuits against public participation.

• DONATE TO FPF

This year, we’ve trained over 3,000 journalists in essential digital security skills, documented 240 press freedom violations, and filed over 250 Freedom of Information Act requests and 6 FOIA lawsuits. We can’t keep this up without your help. Donate online, via DAFpay, or our other ways to give. All donations are matched, up to $75,000.

RSVP: http://freedom.press/silenced-sources

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The New York Times and its Pentagon reporter, Julian Barnes, are taking the Trump administration to court over the Department of Defense’s unconstitutional requirement that journalists pledge not to report unauthorized information as a condition of gaining access to the Pentagon.

The following statement can be attributed to Trevor Timm, executive director for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF).

“In an era where news networks seem to be caving to Trump’s censorious tactics left and right, it’s refreshing to see The New York Times leading by example and sticking up for the First Amendment in court.

“An attack on any journalist’s rights is an attack on all. And the only way to put an end to the Trump administration’s multipronged assault on press freedom is for every news outlet to fight back at every opportunity. We urge other news outlets to follow the Times’ lead.

“These days, the government has countless platforms of its own to tell the public what it wants it to know. A free and independent press isn’t needed for that. The Constitution guarantees one anyway precisely because the public needs the information the government does not want it to know. The Pentagon’s absurd access pledge has been an affront to the First Amendment since the first day they proposed it. And we look forward to a federal judge throwing it out with the trash, where it belongs.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The federal appellate court for the D.C. Circuit recently affirmed a ruling requiring investigative journalist Catherine Herridge to disclose the sources for her reporting on scientist Yangping Chen’s alleged ties to the Chinese military while an online college Chen founded received federal funds.

The court got it wrong by holding Herridge in contempt for not burning her sources, and Herridge is rightly seeking a rehearing. Worse yet, the misguided ruling was informed by documents about the FBI’s investigation of Chen that were filed under seal, even though the investigation is over and the documents aren’t classified. The appellate court even held a portion of its hearing to decide whether to order Herridge to testify in closed court.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), represented by Schaerr | Jaffe LLP, filed a motion to intervene and unseal the documents and hearing transcript yesterday.

The following statement can be attributed to Seth Stern, director of advocacy for FPF.

“Journalist-source confidentiality is about safeguarding the public’s right to be informed. Its fate should not be decided in secret hearings about secret documents. Americans deserve to know whether the damages Chen claims to have suffered were because of alleged leaks to Herridge or because of the outcome of the government investigation she reported on. If the latter, it raises the question of whether the court is ordering Herridge to out her sources to aid Chen in pursuing a baseless lawsuit. Surely the bar for compelled disclosure of journalistic sources must be higher than that.

“Opponents of the reporter’s privilege often dream up convoluted hypothetical scenarios to call it a national security risk. But here we see someone suspected of ties to a foreign military able to use the courts to try to find out who in the government U.S. reporters are talking to and the content of those conversations. It goes to show that the real national security risk is the lack of a statutory privilege, which allows courts to issue misguided rulings. Congress should step up and reintroduce and pass the PRESS Act.”

H. Christopher Bartolomucci, a partner at Schaerr | Jaffe, added:

“Public access and government accountability are fundamental to the rule of law, and the notion of ‘secret law’ is anathema to our system of justice. By denying the public access to important judicial records in this case, the court is keeping members of the public from judging for themselves the strength or weakness of the court’s reasoning.”

You can read FPF’s motion here.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Michigan’s Grand Blanc Township thinks it has discovered a trick to weasel out of accountability: charging a reporter more for government records than most people earn in two years.

Independent journalist Anna Matson filed two requests for records about the township’s fire chief, Jamie Jent, being placed on administrative leave. That decision — later lifted after outcry from residents and firefighters — reportedly came after he raised concerns about staffing issues following the tragic September shooting at the township’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The government told her she’d have to pay a combined $164,000 in labor costs ($100,000 for her first request and $64,000 for a second) for finding and reviewing the records in order for them to respond to the request. That’s ridiculous. Michigan’s legislature should act to ensure that other local governments don’t get any ideas.

There’s nothing unusually burdensome about Matson’s requests. If the township’s recordkeeping is so shoddy and its search capabilities so lacking that it costs six figures’ worth of employee time to find some emails and documents, that’s the township’s problem, not Matson’s. If anything, it begs another Freedom of Information Act request to figure out how the township reached that level of incompetence, and what officials are spending money on instead of basic software.

The township doubled down on evasiveness when Matson showed up to a board meeting last week to contest the fees, and it made nonsensical excuses to enter into closed session so that it could discuss its secrecy in secret.

Maybe the township thinks the fees will discourage the press from trying to hold it accountable. More likely, it will do the opposite: inspire reporters to keep digging. Intrepid journalists see obvious obstruction tactics like these and think, “I must be on to something.” We’re confident Matson will eventually uncover whatever the township doesn’t want her and her readers to see.

Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, like the federal FOIA and state public records laws across the country, was intended to let everyone — not just rich people — find out what their government is up to and how their money is being spent.

The law allows agencies to charge reasonable fees — copying costs, mailing expenses, and limited labor charges calculated at the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee capable of doing the work. Agencies aren’t permitted to charge for the first two hours of labor, and they can only charge for search and review time if not doing so would result in “unreasonably high costs.”

Officials are taking advantage of the media’s weak financial position to hold accountability for ransom.

We’re not fans of charging any labor costs for FOIAs. Tax dollars already pay for agencies to maintain public records. Allowing the public to access them is a basic government function. But putting that aside, how does finding records about one employee during a limited time frame — which was all her first request sought — cost six figures? The $64,000 price tag for the second request for departmental records is equally absurd and also shows the arbitrariness of the whole thing — how does the broader request cost less than the narrower one?

This obstruction tactic is hardly a local innovation. Last year, Nebraska’s legislature had to step in after the state’s Department of Environment and Energy tried charging the Flatwater Free Press more than $44,000 to review environmental records. It claimed figuring out what exemptions to the public’s records law applied would be time-consuming — essentially making the press pay for their time figuring out legal arguments to not give it the records it wanted.

The Trump administration — which has attempted to close FOIA offices and fired officials who released embarrassing information pursuant to FOIAs — recently demanded journalist Brian Karem pay a $50,000 bond just to expedite a lawsuit for documents about the classified records Trump took to Mar-a-Lago. It’s far from the first instance of fee bullying by the federal government, regardless of who is president.

Trump, of course, claims he did nothing wrong by taking those documents, but doesn’t want to let the public be the judge. The situation in Grand Blanc Township is similar — the same government that may have punished a fire chief for speaking up about public safety wants to punish a journalist for asking questions about it. It’s secrecy stacked on secrecy.

It’s no coincidence that so many of these overcharging cases involve requests by independent journalists or small local outlets. The government knows the news industry is struggling economically. That’s no secret. Officials are taking advantage of the media’s weak financial position to hold accountability for ransom. If they get their way, transparency will become a luxury only affordable to major media outlets that are unlikely to have much interest in public records from Grand Blanc Township in the first place.

The township needs to rescind its invoice, apologize to Matson, and get her the records she’s entitled to right away. Beyond that, state legislators need to put politics aside and follow Nebraska’s example by narrowing what the government can charge the public for its own records and making those limits unambiguous (and of course, they should also remove absurd provisions exempting the governor and legislature from transparency).

And if agencies have the nerve to defend these shakedowns in court, judges should hold government lawyers accountable for whatever frivolous legal arguments they concoct to justify charging well over the cost of a house in Detroit for basic transparency.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The White House has launched a media bias tracker to catalog instances of supposedly distorted coverage by the press. Predictably, the site is long on hyperbole and short on substance.

The following statement can be attributed to Seth Stern, director of advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF):

“If Trump thinks the media is getting stories wrong or being unfair to him, he should release the public records, correspondence, and legal memoranda that prove it, instead of wasting time and taxpayer money on silly websites.

“He’s got more power than anyone to correct the record with documented facts and has countless platforms on which to do so. Instead, he calls reporters ‘piggy’ and posts empty rants that don’t refute anything, while doing everything in his power to hinder Americans’ access to public records containing verifiable facts.

“Trump’s anti-speech antics are highly unpopular, and I doubt many people take his ramblings about ‘fake news’ seriously at this point. He has made it extremely clear that his beef is not with media bias but with journalists not flattering him and regurgitating his lies. It’s a safe bet that his bias tracker will not have anything to say about the influencers and propagandists he favors over serious journalists.

“People understand the obvious conflict inherent in an image-obsessed presidential administration appointing itself the arbiter of media bias. I expect that after the initial wave of publicity, few Americans will be paying attention to this latest stunt, let alone consulting it when deciding what news to consume. The gimmick is wearing thin.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 241 days for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like. Read on for more about the federal government targeting noncitizen journalists for what they write, say and think.

Journalist-hating president kisses up to journalist-killing crown prince

President Donald Trump shamefully welcomed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the White House this week. He brushed aside questions about Crown Prince Mohammed’s role in the gruesome 2018 murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, commenting that “things happen” and “You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.”

Freedom of the Press foundation (FPF) Director of Advocacy Seth Stern remarked:

“Somehow calling a female reporter ‘piggy’ was only the second-most offensive anti-press utterance to come out of the president’s mouth in recent days. And somehow Biden’s infamous fist bump is now only the second-most disgusting public display of flattery by a U.S. president to journalist-murderer Mohammed bin Salman.”

Read his full statement.

DHS targets journalists for speaking out about Gaza

Texas journalist Ya’akub Ira Vijandre and British journalist and commentator Sami Hamdi are the two latest examples of the Department of Homeland Security targeting journalists.

Hamdi self-deported to England after 18 days enduring inhumane conditions in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. Vijandre, a Filipino American Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipient who has lived in the U.S. since 2021, remains in custody as he awaits deportation proceedings.

Hamdi and his wife, Soumaya, joined us for an online event this week alongside attorneys and friends of both Hamdi and Vijandre. As Hamdi said, “If the American public finds out the realities of what’s happening, ICE will be dismantled in an instant.”

Watch the discussion here.

A $50 lesson in press freedom

Prosecutors in Kentucky have finally dropped charges against journalist Madeline Fening, who was arrested while covering a July protest on the Roebling Bridge for CityBeat.

But, as Stern wrote in an op-ed for CityBeat, the damage is already done. Kenton County drew condemnation from civil liberties advocates across the country and sacrificed any credibility it had when it came to respecting First Amendment rights — and all to recover a combined grand total of $50 from Fening and her colleague, Lucas Griffith.

Read the op-ed.

Journalists targeted at Oregon protests

You’ve probably seen the inflatable frogs, the dance parties, the naked bike ride. Maybe you’ve also seen the darker images: a federal officer aiming a weapon at protesters, or federal agents hurling tear gas and flash bangs into peaceful demonstrations at a Portland, Oregon, immigration facility.

FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus writes about how journalists in Portland have been attacked for bringing images like these to the world.

Read more here.

Court suspends journalist injunction in Chicago

A judicial order won by Chicago area journalists that limited protest policing tactics by federal law enforcement was put on hold this week, with a federal appellate court calling the order overbroad.

As Stern told FPF’s U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, “It is difficult to understand how it is overbroad to ‘enjoin all law enforcement officers within the Executive Branch’ when the president, who last I checked runs the executive branch, expressly demands that those under him brutalize, censor and arrest activists and journalists who interfere with their narrative — the exact conduct restricted by the injunction.”

Read more here.

Immigration agents claim routine reporting violates federal law

Independent news outlet Status Coup reported Wednesday that federal immigration agents threatened its reporter, Jon Farina, with arrest for following and filming them, despite well-established First Amendment protections.

Stern said in a statement, “It looks like these officers believe transparency itself is obstructive to their operations, which is a pretty good indicator that their operations are in need of obstruction. The First Amendment is intended to obstruct government abuses. … If they’re too thin-skinned for the public scrutiny that comes with being a part of that, they can go find a job that doesn’t involve abducting people for an authoritarian regime.”

Read the full statement.

What we’re reading

The secrecy surrounding the Trump’s immigration agenda (NPR). FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy joined NPR’s “1A” to talk about the shroud of secrecy at virtually every level of the immigration system.

Vindman demands release of Trump-Mohammed bin Salman call after Khashoggi murder: ‘You will be shocked’ (The Hill). This is exhibit “A” for why the National Security Council should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Larry Ellison discussed axing CNN hosts with White House in takeover bid talks (The Guardian). So the president went from feigning outrage about allegedly biased public media to making deals with centibillionaire friends to make corporate media more biased. Got it.

After Donald Trump’s attack on correspondent Mary Bruce, White House goes after ABC again with ‘fake news’ press release (Deadline). It looks like $16 million – the amount ABC paid to settle Trump’s frivolous lawsuit last year – only buys you so much protection these days.

Will Trump destroy the BBC? (Unherd). “So I presume by the name of your organization that you’re not very keen on sitting presidents suing news organizations.” That’s correct! Listen to our interview with Unherd about Trump’s lawsuit threat against BBC.

The SLAPP Back Initiative (First Amendment Watch). Congratulations to First Amendment Watch at New York University for launching the first database in the U.S. documenting alleged strategic lawsuits against public participation.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Independent news outlet Status Coup reported yesterday that federal immigration agents threatened its reporter, Jon Farina, with arrest for following and filming them, despite well-established First Amendment protections for newsgathering and, specifically, for recording law enforcement.

Border Patrol officers cited a federal statute barring impeding or interference with law enforcement operations, which is entirely inapplicable to Farina filming from a distance. It’s the latest in a series of worrying incidents where politicians and federal agents claim that routine reporting on immigration enforcement is somehow illegal.

Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Director of Advocacy Seth Stern said:

“Americans have a constitutional right to record law enforcement doing their jobs in public and are fully entitled to follow police in order to exercise that right. That right is by no means exclusive to reporters, but it’s especially egregious for law enforcement officers not to recognize that journalists are allowed to document what they’re up to.

“Video of the incident makes clear that the reporters were not in any way obstructing or impeding officers in violation of federal law. They were recording from a distance. It looks like these officers believe transparency itself is obstructive to their operations, which is a pretty good indicator that their operations are in need of obstruction. We’ve repeatedly seen video footage expose misconduct and lies by federal agents. The First Amendment is intended to obstruct government abuses.

“Immigration officers are placing themselves at the center of a major national controversy. Their colleagues have killed and injured people, and held them in inhumane dungeons. If they’re too thin-skinned for the public scrutiny that comes with being a part of that, they can go find a job that doesn’t involve abducting people for an authoritarian regime.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

You’ve probably seen the inflatable frogs, the dance parties, the naked bike ride. Maybe you’ve also seen the darker images: a federal officer aiming a weapon at protesters, or federal agents hurling tear gas and flash bangs into peaceful demonstrations at a Portland, Oregon, immigration facility.

Local journalists have been attacked for bringing images like these to the world. They’re being tear-gassed and shot with crowd-control munitions by federal agents simply for doing their jobs.

Photojournalist John Rudoff is among them. He’s been covering these protests since June, photographing both peaceful marches and violent responses from federal officers that often follow.

On Oct. 11, while documenting a protest, Rudoff was struck by a stinger grenade, even though he was clearly identifiable as press. He was bruised, but not deterred.

“If you cover protests, you’re going to have discomfort and hazard. Period. That’s just the way it is,” Rudoff told us. “They shoot 20-year-old girls, and they shoot 70-year-old men, and they shoot people in wheelchairs, and they shoot blind people,” he added, referring to federal agents using crowd-control munitions. “The word impunity seems to be coined for them.”

Despite the danger, Rudoff refuses to stop documenting. “The entire media ecosystem has been covered with the administration’s rantings about the war-ravaged hellscape of Portland, and the city is burning down, and ICE officers are being attacked, and on and on and on,” he said. “I feel some obligation to try and counter this frankly preposterous narrative that the city’s burning down. It isn’t.”

Independent journalist Kevin Foster, who has also been covering the Portland protests, shares that sense of duty and outrage. “It’s clear the Trump administration wants to paint Portland as a war zone to seize more control, but it’s a lot harder to do that when I’m showing you all the dancing inflatable frogs,” he told us. “At the end of the day, someone needs to be there to document abuses of power.”

Foster has felt the danger up close while reporting from protests. “I’ve seen other press members shot with pepper balls, I’ve had flash bangs go off at my feet, and tear gas canisters explode above my head,” he said. But he continues to work to keep the public informed, reporting on federal agents’ heavy use of force and escalatory tactics at the protests.

For Foster, the concerns go beyond federal agents at protests. “Right-wing influencers and agitators have reportedly doxxed people,” Foster said. “With the state of the presidency and the history of authoritarianism, I do sometimes worry about persecution as well, especially given that a lot of my coverage subverts the narrative produced by right-wing media.”

The incident in Portland that got the most attention involved Katie Daviscourt, a reporter for the conservative news site The Post Millennial. She reported being hit in the face by someone swinging a flagpole at a protest, blackening her eye. Police let the suspect go, prompting feigned outrage from the White House.

Holding federal agents accountable

Violence against the press, from any direction, is an attack on the First Amendment itself, especially when enabled by law enforcement. Unfortunately, those purportedly appalled by the Daviscourt incident have not shown similar concern over federal law enforcement attacks on journalists who don’t further their preferred political narratives.

Since the Portland protests began in June, for instance, photojournalist Mason Lake has been struck by crowd-control munitions twice, pepper-sprayed, and had a rifle aimed at him. Yet federal officials haven’t condemned these attacks, or the attack on Rudoff.

“It’s very disconcerting to see how free press has been trampled,” Lake told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF). “The best we can do is push back and make sure the truth isn’t run over.”

In other cities, like Chicago, Illinois, and Los Angeles, California, federal court orders protect journalists from such assaults. But Portland currently has no such order. Legal precedent from 2020 protests in Portland recognized reporters’ First Amendment right to cover protests and shielded them from dispersal orders. But it has done little to rein in federal agents today.

“They have to be sued, and they have to be enjoined, and they have to be criminally prosecuted until they stop doing it,” suggested Rudoff.

Until that happens, however, journalists must keep speaking up, not just about what they see, but also for being attacked for witnessing it. “Most attacks on journalists aren’t reported,” explained Rudoff. But, he added, “I don’t know a single journalist out there who hasn’t been shot or hit or knocked over or tear-gassed or pepper-sprayed. It’s everybody.”

Foster put it even more bluntly: “Many Americans seem to have this impression that brutalizing protesters and targeting the press only happens in other countries. If that notion hasn’t shattered for you yet, wait until your ears are ringing from flash bangs and you’re enveloped in a cloud of tear gas so thick you can’t see 15 feet.”

This isn’t some distant dictatorship. It’s the city of Portland. And the First Amendment is under siege.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

President Donald Trump shamefully welcomed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the White House today. He brushed aside questions about Prince Mohammed’s role in the gruesome murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, commenting that “things happen” and “You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation Director of Advocacy Seth Stern said:

“Somehow calling a female reporter ‘piggy’ was only the second-most offensive anti-press utterance to come out of the president’s mouth in recent days. And somehow Biden’s infamous fist bump is now only the second-most disgusting public display of flattery by a U.S. president to journalist-murderer Mohammed bin Salman.

“Scolding a U.S. reporter for asking questions about MBS ordering a fellow journalist to be bonesawed signals to dictators everywhere that they can murder journalists with impunity — as if Trump hadn’t already sent that message clearly enough by bankrolling and arming Israel while it does just that in Gaza.

“Today’s fiasco felt like the nail in the coffin for whatever was left of the U.S.’s global standing as a leader on press freedom. The next president is going to have their work cut out for them in rebuilding that credibility. In the meantime, judges, lawmakers, and everyone else in a position to slow the backslide need to step up and rise to the moment before more journalists get killed.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 234 days for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like. As we’ll discuss during an online panel Tuesday, the government hasn’t stopped targeting journalists for removal. Read on for news from Kansas, Ohio, and more.

Kansas county pays $3M for forgetting the First Amendment

Press freedom just scored a $3 million win in Kansas. The county that participated in an illegal raid on the Marion County Record in 2023 is cutting big checks to journalists and a city councilor to settle their lawsuits.

As part of the settlement, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office also made a statement of “regret” for the raid, saying, “This likely would not have happened if established law had been reviewed and applied prior to the execution of the warrants.”

Ya think? FPF Senior Advocacy Adviser Caitlin Vogus broke down the flashing red lights any judge or cop should heed before storming a newsroom. Read her article here. And check out our March interview with Record publisher Eric Meyer.

No, journalists don’t need permission to cover immigration courts

Last month, we wrote to the Hyattsville immigration court in Maryland to express our alarm over a report that two journalists from Capital News Service had been expelled for not seeking express permission from the federal government to cover immigration proceedings.

That expulsion was contrary not only to the Constitution but also to the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s own guidance. But we noticed another problem with their fact sheet. It said reporters “must” check in upon arriving at immigration court. We’d been hearing anecdotes for some time about journalists being asked to “check in” at lobbies of immigration courts in other parts of the country. The fact sheet confirmed it.

In response, EOIR clarified that journalists are not required to either coordinate visits with the government in advance or check in upon arrival. And it issued an amended fact sheet to remove any doubt. We posted the fact sheet and email exchange on our site so any reporters given wrong information can have them handy. Read more here.

Secrecy and the midterms

The midterm elections are a year away, and it is essential to ensure that they are free and fair. Transparency is key, specifically surrounding the Department of Homeland Security’s election integrity unit and the Justice Department’s attempts to access voter data and equipment.

DHS’s election integrity unit is particularly secretive. For example, President Donald Trump appointed prominent election denier Heather Honey to lead the effort, but very little is known about what she’s doing with her newfound power. FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper has more about our efforts to hold the unit accountable. Subscribe to The Classifieds for more secrecy news.

Charges dropped against Cincinnati journalist

Charges have finally been dropped against CityBeat reporter Madeline Fening, who was arrested while covering a protest at the Roebling Bridge in northern Kentucky in July. Congratulations to the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and their legal partners on the important win.

We led two letters in support of Fening and CityBeat intern Lucas Griffith. After the first, felony charges against the two were dropped. The second led prosecutors to admit to a reporter that they’d offered to drop charges in exchange for the journalists waiving their right to sue — a likely violation of both the Constitution and attorney ethics rules.

Now, both cases are over, but Griffith was found guilty of failure to disperse and fined $50. That may not sound like much, but the constitutional violation is still significant – journalists are not required to disperse along with protesters because they need to be free to cover the aftermath of protests. Read CityBeat’s coverage here.

What we’re reading

Trump vs. the BBC: What hurdles might the president’s legal argument face? (BBC). Trump “doesn’t care” if he wins the lawsuits he’s filed against newsrooms he doesn’t like, FPF’’s Advocacy Director Seth Stern told BBC. “The point is to intimidate and punish those he views as critical (of) him.”

When reporting is a crime (Inquest). “Prison journalism should not be illegal. It should not be starved, stifled, or silenced. ... laws need to change.” Read Inquest’s article featuring FPF columnist Jeremy Busby’s account of how his own journalism, and that of outside reporters wanting to tell his story, is stifled by prison authorities. And watch our video featuring journalist Daniel Moritz-Rabson discussing the guide to reporting on prisons that he wrote for FPF.

The FCC’s news distortion policy should be rescinded (Protect Democracy). Thanks to our friends at Protect Democracy for furthering the fight against Brendan Carr’s censorial FCC. Carr’s selective enforcement of the policy to characterize any coverage Trump doesn’t like as “distortion” shows why the policy shouldn’t exist in the first place.

Larry Wilson: Stop shooting at the press while we do our jobs (Los Angeles Daily News). “Cops are banned from shooting non-violent people with deadly projectiles — whether they’re protesters or journalists. Because it’s illegal,” said First Amendment lawyer Susan Seager.

I tried to deliver aid to Gaza. Israel kidnapped and tortured me (The Nation). Journalist and human rights lawyer Thomas Becker writes about his treatment while detained by Israel. Watch our online discussion last week, in partnership with Defending Rights & Dissent, with three U.S. journalists who reported similar experiences after being abducted from aid flotillas.

Press freedom just scored a $3 million win in Kansas. The county that participated in an illegal raid on the Marion County Record in 2023 is cutting big checks to journalists and a city councilor to settle their lawsuits.

As part of the settlement, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office also made a statement of “regret” for the raid, saying, “This likely would not have happened if established law had been reviewed and applied prior to the execution of the warrants.”

You think? Any police officer or judge with half an understanding of the First Amendment should’ve known better than to ask for or sign off on the raid on the Record and the home of owners Eric and Joan Meyer.

But apparently, police don’t always read the law, and judges may need a refresher, too. Let’s break down the flashing red lights any judge or cop should heed before storming a newsroom.

The First and Fourth amendments strongly protect against searches of journalists and newsrooms.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause, which means a likelihood that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at a particular place. The government must also specify the place to be searched and the thing to be seized.

When a search warrant targets materials protected by the First Amendment — like notes, recordings, drafts, and materials used or created by journalists — the Fourth Amendment’s requirements must be scrupulously followed, the Supreme Court has said.

This means that judges must be extra strict in applying the Fourth Amendment’s requirements when a search impacts First Amendment rights, which it will any time it involves a journalist or newsroom. What judges should never do is allow overly broad searches where police rifle through journalists’ desks and computer files willy-nilly in the hopes of turning up something “incriminating.”

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 forbids the use of search warrants to seize materials from journalists, with only a few narrow exceptions.

The PPA is a federal law that requires law enforcement to get a subpoena, not just a search warrant, in most cases when dealing with reporters and newsrooms. Subpoenas give journalists the chance to challenge a demand for documents or equipment in court before police can seize them. If police had sought a subpoena for the Record’s newsgathering materials, for instance, the newspaper could have successfully challenged the demand in court, meaning that the newsroom would never have been raided and the Record’s confidential sources would have been protected.

There are narrow exceptions to the PPA’s subpoena requirement, including when there is probable cause to believe a journalist has committed a criminal offense related to the material sought. But, in general, the offense cannot relate to the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of newsgathering materials or information.

Journalists can read a guide on our website for more information about the PPA.

State shield laws are another barrier to newsroom searches.

Almost every state has a reporter’s shield law on the books that protects journalists from the compelled disclosure of their confidential sources and unpublished information, and sometimes protects against the forced disclosure of nonconfidential information, too. Courts around the country have also recognized a First Amendment and common law reporter’s privilege that can provide similar protections.

Kansas’ shield law, for instance, applies to “any information gathered, received or processed by a journalist, whether or not such information is actually published, and whether or not related information has been disseminated.” It forbids compelling a journalist from disclosing unpublished information or confidential sources until after a court hearing.

Other states’ shield laws have similar protections. Barging into a newsroom and searching it violates those laws and the established processes for law enforcement to obtain information from the press.

Accessing publicly available information or information provided by a source is not a crime, and is protected by the First Amendment.

Seems obvious, but judging by how often this comes up, maybe not.

Everyone has a First Amendment right to read, watch, or view publicly available information. It’s not a crime to access a record made publicly available by a government agency (as reporters at the Record did), to read something that someone published on a public website, even if it was published by accident, or to photograph police officers in public.

Journalists also have a right to publish information given to them by a source, even if the source obtained it illegally, as long as the journalist didn’t participate in the illegality. That means that if a source gives a journalist a document or recording that the source stole, the journalist can’t be punished for publishing it.

Because these things are not crimes, it also means that accessing publicly available information or publishing information that a source illegally obtained can’t be the basis for a raid on a newsroom or search of a journalist’s materials.

Next time, think before you raid.

The $3 million settlement is a step toward accountability, but it can’t undo the damage to the Record’s journalists or sources, and especially not to Joan Meyer, who died the day after police invaded her home.

If local communities don’t want to keep learning First Amendment law the expensive way, they must insist that law enforcement actually read the Constitution and the law before targeting the press.

Last month, we wrote to the Hyattsville Immigration Court in Maryland to express our alarm over a report that two journalists from Capital News Service had been expelled for not seeking express permission from the federal government to cover immigration proceedings.

Not only was that a blatant First Amendment violation, it was contrary to the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s own fact sheet, in which the arm of the Justice Department said that coordinating media visits with the government in advance was “encouraged,” not mandatory. It’s hard to blame journalists for not wanting to go out of their way to put themselves on the radar by “coordinating” with an administration that abhors the free press.

But we noticed another problem with the fact sheet. It said reporters “must” check in upon arriving at immigration court. We’d been hearing anecdotes for some time about journalists being asked to “check in” at lobbies of immigration courts in other parts of the country. The fact sheet confirmed it.

We expressed our concerns to the EOIR, which was (surprisingly) responsive to our initial letter, despite the shutdown. It confirmed that, as CNS reported, the journalists’ access had been restored and they were free to report on immigration court proceedings.

It also stated that journalists are not required to either coordinate visits with the government in advance or check in with courthouse personnel upon arrival. It explained that it prefers journalists check in so that they can arrange for priority seating, but that they do not have to do so. And it issued a new fact sheet to make that clear. Yes, the fact sheet reflects that EOIR, like far too many local and federal agencies, still unconstitutionally demands that all media inquiries be routed through a public information office. But that‘s a battle for another day.

We’re posting the email exchange and new fact sheet below so that any journalist who is told something to the contrary can show it to whoever is giving them incorrect information.

And kudos to the unnamed EOIR official who took care of this promptly. Let’s hope the Trump administration doesn’t fire them for gross competence.