Freedom of the Press

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s now the 66th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like. More press freedom news below.

Risking free speech won’t protect kids

Federal agencies are transforming into the speech police under President Donald Trump. So why are some Democrats supporting the Kids Online Safety Act, a recently reintroduced bill that would authorize the MAGA-controlled Federal Trade Commission to enforce censorship?

As Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) senior advocacy adviser Caitlin Vogus wrote for The Boston Globe, there’s never an excuse for supporting censorship bills, but especially when the political loyalists at the FTC are sure to abuse any power they’re given to stifle news on disfavored topics. Read the op-ed here.

We’re ready to sue if Paramount executives sell out the press

We’ve written previously about how Trump’s frivolous complaint against Paramount Global over CBS News’ editing of an interview with Kamala Harris threatens the freedoms of other news outlets. Yesterday, Trump proved it by claiming his $20 billion damages demand is based on “mental anguish” due to the answer – which doesn’t even mention him. How’s that for a “snowflake”?

As we informed Paramount Global executives last week, we plan to file a shareholder derivative lawsuit if Paramount settles. We believe any settlement – let alone the eight figure range being discussed – would be an effort to launder bribe money through the courts and would damage Paramount irreparably.

Reports this week in the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere have noted that executives fear derivative liability if they settle. They should. Read more here.

Phone companies keep journalist surveillance secret

A letter by Sen. Ron Wyden about surveillance of senators’ phone lines has an important lesson for journalists, too: Be careful in selecting your phone carrier.

Wyden wrote his Senate colleagues revealing which wireless carriers inform customers about government surveillance requests (Cape, Google Fi, and US Mobile), and which don’t (AT&T, Boost Mobile, Charter/Spectrum, Comcast/Xfinity Mobile, T-Mobile, and Verizon). Read more here.

Fallout from silencing Voice of America

As a reporter on the press freedom beat, Liam Scott chronicled abuses against journalists for Voice of America. But now, Scott himself is part of the story.

In March, Trump signed an executive order gutting the United States Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA. Scott and his colleagues have been or are set to be terminated imminently, and the website hasn’t published a new story in months.

We spoke to Scott about his unique perspective on current threats to press freedom, as both a victim and a journalist covering them. We were joined by Jason Scott of Archive Team, who is working to preserve VOA’s content should it be taken offline. Read more and watch the webinar here.

Administration abuses secrecy rules

Lauren Harper, FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, joined MeidasTouch Network’s Legal AF podcast, “Court of History,” to explain how the Trump administration is abusing secrecy to control the news narrative — and how an FPF Freedom of Information Act win revealed the truth.

Harper was joined by University of Maryland professor Jason Baron in a wide-ranging discussion with co-hosts Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz. Watch the video podcast here.

Federal police reforms repealed

The same week the Justice Department announced it was dropping federal oversight programs and investigations into more than two dozen police departments, including in Minneapolis, the city held a remembrance marking five years since the murder of George Floyd by a local police officer.

Police abuses of protestors and journalists during the demonstrations that followed Floyd’s murder led to the now-abandoned reforms, including consent decrees in Minneapolis and Louisville dealing with how police should interact with journalists covering protests and their aftermaths. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of FPF, has more. Read the Tracker’s coverage here.

What we’re reading

Greene County policy barring staff from speaking to press ‘unconstitutional,’ experts say (The Daily Progress). Local government employees should be able to talk to the press. But in Greene County, Virginia, they can’t. We told The Daily Progress that the county policy is unconstitutional.

Journalist sues LA county, ex-LA county sheriff for criminally investigating her (The Dissenter). It’s good to see journalist Maya Lau stand up for journalists’ right to not be investigated and harassed for doing their jobs.

How to stand your ground, in three (not so easy) steps (American Crisis). Institutions shouldn’t cave to Trump’s threats. Thanks to Margaret Sullivan for citing our plans to sue if Paramount settles with Trump as an example on how to stand your ground.

FBI visits me over manifesto (Ken Klippenstein). Journalists’ sources and newsgathering are none of the FBI’s business. They don’t seriously think Klippenstein was some kind of conspirator — they just want to intimidate him and other journalists.

As a reporter on the press freedom beat, Liam Scott chronicled abuses against journalists at home and abroad for Voice of America. But he was shocked when the experiences of those on the other side of the page became his own.

In March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order suddenly gutting the United States Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA. Scott and hundreds of colleagues have been or are set to be terminated imminently, and the international news service’s website hasn’t published a new story in months.

To understand more about how Trump’s anti-press tactics threaten the independence of public-interest journalism and what comes next for press freedom in the U.S. and around the world, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) hosted an online webinar May 23 with Scott and Archive Team Co-founder Jason Scott, who is working to preserve VOA’s content should it be taken offline.

“After several years of covering press freedom issues, it still feels weird to be in the midst of a press freedom issue that is affecting me and my colleagues,” Liam Scott said. “There is actually a lot that is happening here that reminds me of what I’ve reported on in other countries.”

He also expressed significant concern for colleagues who are in the U.S. on visas. Without authorization to continue working here, they will be forced to return home to countries where austere rules about free speech can lead to jail time or worse, he cautioned.

“VOA has journalists now imprisoned in Myanmar, Vietnam, and Azerbaijan, and there are other journalists from Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia who are imprisoned in other countries around the world as well, just for doing their jobs,” Liam Scott said, referring to two other international news services long supported by the U.S. government. “So my immediate concern was if VOA and its sister outlets shut down, who is going to advocate for these reporters?”

Preserving VOA’s online content

While the fate of VOA’s employees hangs in the balance, so too does its website, a resource for readers who live in regions of censorship and can’t access this information anywhere else. Amid fears that the site and the reporting it hosts will vanish from the internet and leave behind thousands of stories, efforts are underway to preserve its contents.

Archive Team members, including Jason Scott, have created an “online footprint” of VOA’s website that contains over 400 gigabytes worth of stories. It’s paramount to ensure a replica of the site exists before its potential takedown, he said, because the work cannot be done retroactively.

“The conversation about whether or not to save something usually stops once it’s gone,” he added.

As a general rule of thumb, Jason Scott recommended that journalists keep multiple copies of their work in different locations, in the event they lose access to where their work is published.

Doing so is especially important in the current digital climate under the Trump administration, which has scrubbed countless federal webpages.

In that sense, said Jason Scott, it bears resemblance to a startup company.

“You move fast, you break things, you work it out later. If something can’t be explained to you in two seconds, get rid of it,” he added. This slash-and-burn approach, a Trump administration hallmark, can wreak havoc for preservation efforts because it evokes a digital “entropy” that can change data access on a dime, said Jason Scott.

While trawling internet data can be exhausting, so can reporting through censorship. Liam Scott, who has continued his work on the press freedom beat at outlets elsewhere, said it’s important “to not get fatigued” and to remember that threats and retaliation are often reactions to strong journalism, which underscores the need to protect the rights of those doing the work.

“Attacks on journalists are also attacks on the public,” he said. “Because when you’re attacking a journalist, you’re attacking the information that they’re trying to share with their audience — information that is so important for how we live our lives.”

Just as accountability is met with reprisal, archiving data is met with unpredictability. As the Archive Team compiles the work of countless VOA journalists who risked their lives to report the truth, Jason Scott said to remember that data preservation is an uphill battle. The power to decide what stays online often belongs to those with the most effective keys to the internet: powerful institutions like the government.

“Data is an incredible devil’s bargain,” he said. “Entropy is the house, and the house always wins.”

A letter by Sen. Ron Wyden about surveillance of senators’ phone lines has an important lesson for journalists, too: Be careful in selecting your phone carrier.

On May 21, Wyden wrote his Senate colleagues revealing which wireless carriers inform customers about government surveillance requests (Cape, Google Fi, and US Mobile), and which don’t (AT&T, Boost Mobile, Charter/Spectrum, Comcast/Xfinity Mobile, T-Mobile, and Verizon).

A handy chart at the bottom of the senator’s press release provides a quick summary.

Wyden’s letter was inspired in part by a Department of Justice inspector general report that revealed that the DOJ had collected phone records of Senate staff as part of leak investigations under the first Trump administration.

But that report wasn’t just about surveillance of the Senate. It also discussed how the DOJ surveilled journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN in 2020-21 as part of leak investigations related to news reporting about the Trump campaign’s connections with Russia and Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

Investigators demanded telephone records from phone companies for the work and personal phones of journalists at all three outlets. In all three cases, the telephone companies turned over the records, which would have shown the numbers dialed, the date and time of calls, and their duration — information that could reveal the identities of confidential sources.

The telephone companies apparently didn’t notify the Times, Post, or CNN that their records had been sought, even though they legally could have done so. The DOJ also didn’t give the news outlets notice, taking advantage of internal guidelines that allowed them to delay notice to news media companies about legal demands for communications records from third parties in certain circumstances. (The rules for delayed notice from the DOJ remain in effect in the recently revised DOJ news media guidelines.)

According to the inspector general report, DOJ cover letters to the telephone companies asked them not to disclose the demands because the DOJ claimed it might impede the investigation. But the DOJ never sought a court order prohibiting disclosure. One prosecutor told the IG that nondisclosure orders weren’t obtained for the telephone companies “because the providers typically do not notify subscribers when their records are sought.”

That’s a problem, and it’s exactly what Wyden called out in his recent letter. Journalists can’t oppose surveillance that they don’t know about. Notification is what enables journalists (or any other customer) to fight back against overbroad, unwarranted, or illegal demands for their data. That’s exactly what the Times did when Google notified the newspaper of demands for its journalists’ email records in connection with the same leak investigation in which investigators sought phone records from Times journalists.

The Times’ contract with Google required the company to notify the news outlet of government demands. But even contractual agreements might not be enough to compel phone companies to inform their customers when they’re being spied on. Wyden’s letter reveals that “three major phone carriers — AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile — failed to establish systems to notify (Senate) offices about surveillance requests, as required by their Senate contracts.”

In addition, even if large news outlets could negotiate contracts with their phone carriers that require notification of surveillance requests when legally allowed, that wouldn’t help their journalists who speak to sources using personal phones that aren’t covered by their employers’ contracts. Freelance journalists are also unlikely to have the power to negotiate notification into their phone contracts.

Rather than one-off contractual agreements then, it would be better for all phone companies to follow the lead of tech companies, like Google, that have a blanket policy of notifying customers of government demands for their data, assuming they’re not gagged. These policies are now widespread in the tech world, thanks to activism by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has long monitored tech companies’ notification policies and encouraged them to do better.

Phone companies must do better, too. It’s a shame that some of the largest wireless carriers can’t be bothered to tell their customers when they’re being surveilled. Journalists — and all of us — who care about privacy have a choice to make when selecting their wireless provider: Do they want to know when they’re being spied on, or are they OK with being left in the dark?

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

This week we examine how leaks are fueling reporting in spite of crackdowns on whistleblowers and journalists. And Rümeysa Öztürk may be out of jail but her ordeal isn’t over. It’s now the 59th day that she’s facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like. More press freedom news below.

Recent leaks show why source protection matters

Our Freedom of Information Act request for an intelligence community memo and the reporting that’s followed have turned into “exhibit A” on why leaks to the press serve the public interest.

Journalists have written about how the memo belies the Trump administration’s own rationale for mass deporting Venezuelans, and we’ve explained how it confirms that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s basis for repealing her predecessor’s safeguards against subpoenaing journalists was bunk. 

But even more revelations have followed. This week the Times reported that Director of National Intelligence official Joe Kent pressured intelligence agencies to rewrite their assessment on the Venezuelan government’s control of gang members to support Trump’s position and then supported the release of the rewritten memo because he didn’t understand what it actually said. We also learned that there is a major rift between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the intelligence community. 

Read on our website. For more on leak investigations, catch us live on May 28 at 11 a.m. PT / 2 p.m. ET with Telos.news founder Ryan Lizza and Pulitzer Prize winner James Risen.

Don’t empower Trump to define terrorism

Rümeysa Öztürk never supported terrorism. That’s not even debatable now. 

But lack of evidence isn’t stopping the Trump administration’s efforts to deport her and others. So when Congress contemplates further empowering the same administration to arbitrarily deem its opponents’ conduct “support of terrorism,” alarm bells should sound.

Well, ring-a-ling. Last year’s “nonprofit killer” bill, which would allow the administration to deem rights organizations and nonprofit news outlets terrorist supporters and revoke their tax-exempt status, is making a comeback. Read more here.

An open letter to leaders of American institutions

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) was proud to join a letter led by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University urging leaders of civic and other major institutions to defend free speech amid the Trump administration’s multifront assault on First Amendment freedoms.

As the letter says, “If our democracy is to survive, the freedoms of speech and the press need a vigorous, determined defense.” Read the whole thing.

US press freedom groups launch Journalist Assistance Network

Five major U.S.-based press freedom organizations (including FPF) announced the launch of a network to provide legal and safety resources and training to journalists and newsrooms in the United States. Read more about it here.

What we’re reading

Coalition to Columbia, Barnard: ‘Do better’ for student journalists (Student Press Law Center). We joined a coalition demanding Columbia stop investigating student journalists and respect students’ free press rights.

Paramount could violate anti-bribery law if it pays to settle Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ lawsuit, senators claim (Variety). Don’t just take our word for it. Settling with Trump puts Paramount executives at risk of significant liability. It also puts CBS at risk of further shakedowns. 

Why does GOP budget bill focus on punishing people who leak tax returns? (The Intercept). “Lawmakers and judges should focus on stopping tax evasion by the rich and powerful, not on disproportionate punishments for whistleblowers,” explained FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern.

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to keep DOGE records secret (Politico). Seems like it’d be more “efficient” to comply with basic transparency requests than waste government resources to keep your work secret.

Judge orders U.S. to keep custody of migrants amid claims they were sent to South Sudan (The New York Times). The Trump administration says “that’s classified” any time it doesn’t want to answer difficult questions to the courts or to the public.

Disclose the Trump crypto dinner guests (The Wall Street Journal).  So much for the “most transparent administration in history.”

FCC Chairman Carr seeks to designate NBC equal time issue for hearing (The Desk). Another week, another sham investigation by Brendan Carr in the news. 

Indiana hides executions. Firing squads would be more honest. (IndyStar). “Indiana killed Ritchie under a veil of secrecy, with no media present . ... We don't know if Ritchie suffered."

New Montana law blocks the state from buying private data to skirt the Fourth Amendment (Reason). Montana is leading the way. Other states and the federal government should follow.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) has informed Paramount Global executives that it plans to file a lawsuit if Paramount settles with President Donald Trump over his court case against CBS News.

News reports indicate Paramount Global is prepared to settle Trump’s frivolous and unconstitutional complaint against its subsidiary, CBS News, over its editing of an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. United States senators and others have said the purpose of settling may be to bribe the president to clear the path for Paramount to finalize a merger with Skydance Media.

We’ve written previously about how Trump’s complaint against CBS is a clear First Amendment violation and threatens the basic press freedom rights of other news outlets.

So today, FPF sent a letter to Paramount Chair Shari Redstone to put her and other Paramount executives on notice that it plans to file a shareholder’s derivative lawsuit should Paramount settle with Trump, and to demand that Paramount preserve all records that may be relevant to its claims. FPF is a Paramount Global shareholder.

A derivative lawsuit is a procedure that allows shareholders of a company to recover damages incurred due to impropriety by executives and directors. Any damages award would go to Paramount, not FPF.

Paramount executives have reportedly feared liability for settling, and this week, U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren opened an investigation of whether settling would violate bribery laws and asking whether Paramount had evaluated the risk of derivative liability.

FPF Director of Advocacy Seth Stern said:

“Corporations that own news outlets should not be in the business of settling baseless lawsuits that clearly violate the First Amendment and put other media outlets at risk. A settlement of Trump’s meritless lawsuit may well be a thinly veiled effort to launder bribes through the court system. Not only would it tank CBS’s reputation but, as three U.S. senators recently explained, it could put Paramount executives at risk of breaking the law.

“Our mission as a press freedom organization is to defend the rights of journalists and the public, not the financial interests of corporate higher-ups who turn their backs on them. When you run a news organization, you have the responsibility to protect First Amendment rights, not abandon them to line your own pockets.

“We hope Paramount will reconsider the dangerous path it appears to be contemplating but, if not, we are prepared to pursue our rights as shareholders. And we hope other Paramount shareholders will join us.”

John Cusack, an FPF founding board member, activist and actor, added, “I’m proud that Freedom of the Press Foundation is doing what CBS’s corporate owners won’t — standing up for press freedom and against authoritarian shakedowns. People who aren’t willing to defend the First Amendment should not be in the news business.”

You can read FPF’s letter here.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

When the Trump administration quickly fulfilled our Freedom of Information Act request for a memo belying its own rationales both for mass deporting Venezuelans and for cracking down on leaks to the press, we had plenty of theories about why.

Maybe someone in the FOIA office used our request as an opportunity to blow the whistle. Maybe it was some kind of mistake. But one possibility that never occurred to us was that administration higher-ups thought that the memo made them look good. After all, everyone knows President Donald Trump hires only the “best and most serious people.”

But according to a report in The New York Times, that’s exactly what happened. So who was the poor junior staffer who somehow read a short, straightforward memo wherein intelligence agencies said Venezuela’s government does not control the Tren de Aragua gang, as Trump claims, and took it to mean, well, the complete opposite? The intelligence community had better stop hiring from whatever school gave that kid a degree!

Turns out it wasn’t some kid, though. It was Joe Kent, chief of staff to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. And get this: He’s Trump’s nominee to lead the National Counterterrorism Center. Apparently, after a first memo undermined Trump’s narrative that Venezuelan migrants are actually President Nicolás Maduro’s secret foot soldiers, Kent requested some “rewriting … so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS.”

The memo released to us was apparently the rewrite — which confirmed the conclusions of the initial memo. It did mention that the FBI believed some Venezuelan government officials might communicate with some members of Tren de Aragua, but no serious legal minds believe that constitutes an invasion that justifies Trump’s invoking of the Alien Enemies Act.

Kent, however, somehow read it (or maybe that’s giving him too much credit) and thought it vindicated the administration. No one else read it that way, including Secretary of State (among other jobs) Marco Rubio. Rubio didn’t even attempt to twist the memo into somehow supporting the administration’s policies — he just said the intelligence community got it wrong.

But the reason Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) filed the FOIA in the first place was not to prove whether Maduro has gangbangers on speed dial or whether high-ranking intelligence officials lack intelligence. It was to check whether Attorney General Pam Bondi’s basis for repealing her predecessor’s safeguards against subpoenaing journalists held water.

Bondi, as well as Gabbard, claimed reports from The New York Times and The Washington Post were false when stating that intelligence agencies disbelieved Trump’s claims about Tren de Aragua. The administration, these officials said, needed the ability to investigate the source of the leak, including by subpoenaing journalists, to protect the nation from so-called fake news from the so-called deep state.

The memo, as we’ve written before, confirmed that the Times and Post got it right and the only thing a crackdown on leaks was meant to protect was Trump and his cronies from embarrassment. But the memo has turned into more than that — it’s become Exhibit A on why leaks to the press serve the public interest.

Here’s a non-exhaustive list of news we now know about because of the leaks to the Times and Post, the memo we were able to request as a result of those leaks, and the reporting that followed.

• Kent, the nominee to lead the National Counterterrorism Center, can’t comprehend basic intelligence reports.
• Kent demanded intelligence agencies rewrite their findings to save his bosses from embarrassment and, according to the Times, there are emails to prove it (we have filed requests for those, too).
• There is a major rift between the State Department and the intelligence community about one of the Trump administration’s most significant policies.
• Gabbard requested Bondi initiate a leak investigation based on lies.
• Bondi repealed protections for reporters and their sources based on the same lies.
• The United States mass deported people to a dangerous prison in El Salvador to perform slave labor for a Trump-friendly authoritarian — all based on the same lies.

Virtually every time the government has cracked down on leaks claiming some kind of threat to the homeland, the real threat has been to its own reputation. Usually it takes years to confirm the obvious. It took decades for Nixon officials who once argued that releasing the Pentagon Papers would gravely endanger national security to admit that was nonsense all along. But this time we know the truth almost immediately, thanks to leaks.

Bondi was right about one thing — the leaks undermined the administration’s policies. But she left out that they were policies that needed undermining because they were built on lies — the kinds of lies that the drafters of the Constitution intended journalists to expose when they wrote the First Amendment’s press clause. That’s what the Times, Post, and their sources did, and it’s exactly why journalist-source confidentiality needs protecting.

Rümeysa Öztürk never supported terrorism. That’s not even debatable at this point. A federal judge confirmed the government has no evidence to deport the Tufts University graduate student besides her co-authorship of an op-ed opposing the war in Gaza.

The Washington Post has reported that the State Department warned the government before it nabbed her off the street near her home that there was no basis to deport her.

But lack of evidence isn’t stopping the Trump administration’s efforts to deport her or others. So when Congress contemplates granting the same administration further powers to arbitrarily deem its opponents’ conduct “support of terrorism,” alarm bells should sound.

Well, ring-a-ling. Last year’s “nonprofit killer” bill is making a comeback. That’s the bill that would allow the secretary of the treasury to deem nonprofit organizations terrorist supporters and revoke their tax-exempt status, all with little to no due process.

It was buried at the back of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” that passed the House Ways and Means Committee, before being stripped out of the next version of the megabill, likely for procedural reasons. There’s no reason to think it’s gone for good.

Opposing the bill’s next incarnation must be top priority for all defenders of press freedom and the rule of law. The bill was a horrible idea during the Biden administration, when many Democrats pandering to anti-Palestinian donors supported it while knowing full well Trump might be president in a few months. Now it’s downright scary.

We don’t have to speculate about slippery slopes anymore — Trump has already shown what he’ll do if he’s allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to who is a terrorist supporter. Öztürk is still facing deportation proceedings, and Mahmoud Khalil is still in jail in Louisiana despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitting in a court filing that the “terrorism” case against him is solely based on his beliefs — primarily his opposition to the Israel-Gaza war.

He’ll almost certainly demand his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declare any organizations that advocate for or assist Palestinians to be terrorist supporters. That’s practically a given. If Bessent refuses, he’ll find someone who will. But what about protesters? Minor property damage will quickly become a terrorist attack in Trump’s alternative reality — an “invasion!” And the administration has already made clear its intent to target environmental nonprofits.

And then, of course, there are nonprofit media outlets, not to mention press freedom groups like Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF).

Trump’s creativity knows no bounds when it comes to conjuring up frivolous legal theories against news outlets. Just last week, his White House claimed that Business Insider’s parent company engaged in illegal political meddling by reporting on his son’s business entanglements. He has argued that reporting critically about him constitutes “tortious interference” or even election interference — months after the election. The list goes on.

Trump’s creativity knows no bounds when it comes to conjuring up frivolous legal theories against news outlets.

And his own party has already shown him the way. Last year, Sen. Tom Cotton and other Republicans demanded that major news outlets be investigated for terrorism because they bought photographs from freelancers in Gaza (one of whom the Israeli army just assassinated). One letter even threatened charges for merely reporting things officials didn’t like.

Those news outlets were for-profit companies and the threats were under existing laws on material support for terrorism. Cotton and his friends’ antics were mere stunts — those laws require the government to prove its case, and it couldn’t. But the nonprofit killer bill solves that problem when it comes to nonprofit news outlets, by eliminating the government’s burden of proof and the defenses afforded to organizations investigated under current law.

Sure, a nonprofit could challenge the constitutionality of the claims against it — and should win — but that could take years, and the controversy could permanently steer donors away.

Here’s what’s puzzling: This bill could easily backfire on Republicans, but they’re pushing it anyway. It’s one thing for anti-immigrant officials to claim broad powers to deport immigrants like Öztürk and Khalil. But conservatives aren’t anti-nonprofit. They have nonprofits too.

One could easily imagine a future Democratic administration, using powers gifted to it by today’s Republicans, deeming anti-abortion organizations terrorist supporters, or punishing conservative groups because of ties to white supremacists far less tenuous than the alleged ties between Öztürk and Hamas. Pro-Israel groups that associate with illegal West Bank settlers could be targeted in the unlikely event the Democrats nominate a pro-Palestine president.

So why don’t the bill’s proponents care about the obvious “shoe on the other foot” possibility? Is it because they’re just that shortsighted? Maybe. Or perhaps they don’t intend to ever relinquish power, and destroying civil society and the press is one part of that plan.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Rümeysa Öztürk may be out of jail but her ordeal isn’t over. It’s now the 52nd day that she’s facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like. More press freedom news below. 

Attacks on the press aren’t just unconstitutional — they’re anticompetitive 

Some say President Donald Trump runs the country like a business. That’s debatable, though he certainly treats the press like one of his corporate rivals — including by targeting news outlets with legal actions that are normally seen in business litigation. 

His lawsuits are baseless. But they may open up opportunities for the press to go on the offensive with real legal claims. Trump’s attacks on the press aren’t only a product of his thin-skinned vindictiveness — he’s also acting as majority shareholder of Trump Media & Technology Group, owner of Truth Social, which he has alleged in court is a competitor of the media outlets he harasses. 

We wrote about the remedies that might be available to the press and others when Trump and Elon Musk undermine their competitors to line their own pockets. Read more here.

State Department must release Öztürk memo

In his ruling ordering Öztürk’s release, U.S. District Judge William Sessions III confirmed that Öztürk’s only apparent offense was co-authoring an op-ed critical of Israel.

He’s not the only one who said that there was no basis to deport Öztürk — according to The Washington Post, so did the State Department, before federal immigration officials abducted her anyway. But the memo the Post based its reporting on still has not been released, so we requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. But the government is stalling. 

The last memo we FOIA’d proved the administration was lying about its bases both for deporting Venezuelans to El Salvador and cracking down on leaks to the press. The public is entitled to know if the administration is misleading it again (spoiler alert, it is). Read more here. 

Nonprofit killer bill is back

We wrote last year about a ridiculous bill that would give the Secretary of the Treasury power to unilaterally deem nonprofits to be supporters of terrorism and revoke their tax-exempt status, with little to no due process. The bill is likely intended to target organizations that oppose the war in Gaza, but once that kind of power is codified there is no telling who might be targeted — including nonprofit news outlets. 

It was reintroduced this week, buried in a 300-page tax bill. It’s even more dangerous now that we’ve got an openly anti-free speech president who has already threatened to target nonprofits he doesn’t like. Tell your representative to oppose this censorship bill. 

What we’re reading

Why the fuck are Democrats helping build MAGA’s censorship machine with KOSA? (Techdirt). How can Sen. Richard Blumenthal or any other Democrat think for a second that this is a good idea, especially now? The current FTC will use the Kids Online Safety Act to go after tech companies that give kids news and information about gay rights, trans rights, abortion, racism, and more.

Trump White House sharpens its knives for Politico’s owner (The Bulwark).  Hate to say we told you so (again), but it was obvious that the bipartisan push to ban TikTok was going to normalize even more baseless attacks on foreign-owned news outlets. If your representatives supported it anyway, ask them what they were thinking.

Israel admits killing journalist in Gaza hospital bomb, saying he ‘documented’ 7 October massacre (The Journal). The Israeli army is basically admitting to murdering a journalist for “documenting” news. We don’t know what else to say.

Union will pay Review-Journal attorney fees in settlement over Henderson jail video (Las Vegas Review-Journal). Yet another example that should send a message to those who try to use baseless lawsuits to censor the press and hide the truth: It will cost you.

White House excludes wire services from Middle East trip (U.S. Press Freedom Tracker). In a break with tradition, President Donald Trump left for the Middle East on May 12 without any wire services in the Air Force One press pool. Read more about the harm attacks on wire services do to the news ecosystem.

Nassau County legislators want to create a moving 15-foot halo for its officers (Techdirt). Does anyone think those who support these buffer bills wouldn’t outright ban recording cops if they could get away with it? We shouldn’t give an inch to opponents of transparency, let alone 15 feet.

We’ve got big plans

Our new two-year strategic plan isn’t just about us: It’s about protecting the public’s right to know. A free press serves everyone. If we want journalism that challenges the powerful, we must defend press freedom, even when the press is imperfect. 

Journalists should be able to fearlessly investigate, publish, and speak truth to power. Otherwise, all that’s left is propaganda. Read more here.

We’re not your lawyers and this article isn’t legal advice. Talk to your attorney before taking any legal action.

Some say President Donald Trump runs the country like a business. That’s debatable, though he certainly treats the press like one of his corporate rivals – including by targeting news outlets with legal actions that are normally seen in business litigation. The claims are baseless. But they may open up opportunities for the press to go on offense.

Case in point, Trump recently took to his platform Truth Social to accuse The New York Times of “tortious interference,” a legal theory usually employed when one company undermines another’s contractual or business relationships. His reasoning? The Times cited experts who doubted the strength of his lawsuit against CBS for editing an interview with presidential rival Kamala Harris.

At risk of reading too much into Trump’s ramblings, he may have been accusing the Times of interfering with his expected settlement with CBS, which is reportedly afraid he’ll block its parent Paramount’s merger plans with media company Skydance if it doesn’t pay up. He also alluded to election interference, but that makes even less sense — the Times article ran five months after the election (and, of course, news reporting is not election interference).

That lawsuit against CBS doubles down on business litigation theories by including “unfair competition” claims, premised on Trump’s assertion that Truth Social competes with CBS. Trump loyalist and “special government employee” Elon Musk has similarly said his social media site, X, is a competitor of traditional media outlets. Both Trump and Musk have also sued news outlets and publishers under consumer fraud and deceptive business practices laws.

To state the obvious, news outlets cannot be held liable for citing legal experts or editing interviews. The Supreme Court has made clear that First Amendment protections can’t be circumvented by repackaging lawsuits aimed at punishing journalism under creative legal theories.

But the Constitution does not extend the same protections to malicious smear campaigns to harm business competitors. Routine hyperbole and exaggeration are not actionable (for example, “My car dealership is the best in town”), but verifiable lies to undermine competitors sure are (for example, “The car dealership across the street falsifies accident records to sell lemons”). So are other deceptive antics to undermine corporate rivals (“Hey carmaker, that’s a nice retailer agreement you’ve got with my dealership — wouldn’t want something to happen to it if you sell cars to that other place too”).

And that is exactly what Trump is up to — not just in his capacity as president, but in his capacity as majority shareholder of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., owner of Truth Social. When he lies about Reuters and Politico receiving improper payments from the government, including misrepresenting contracts his administration signed with a Reuters business unrelated to its newsroom, he’s damaging Truth Social’s competition. Same goes for Musk and X.

Trump is not only retaliating against news outlets that don’t do his bidding, he’s abusing his office to boost his business interests

When Trump sics Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr on news broadcasters to baselessly threaten their licenses, or when he denies access to The Associated Press and other wire services that he sees as competition, he’s not only retaliating against news outlets that don’t do his bidding, he’s abusing his office to boost his business interests.

The potential legal theories against Trump, Musk, and their companies aren’t perfect. Trump’s mixed motives — anticompetitiveness as an entrepreneur, on the one hand, and censorship as an authoritarian on the other — complicate things, particularly given the legal immunity he enjoys and abuses.

But Truth Social and X aren’t immune, and neither is Trump, to the extent he was acting as a businessperson rather than a sitting president. It would sure be interesting to take discovery to find out what his real agenda is. Remember, Trump has long dreamed of starting his own media empire.

And whatever flaws the legal claims against Trump and his holdings may have, they’re a whole lot stronger than the nonsense lawsuits Trump pursues to shake down the press.

One problem is that many potential claims, like one for tortious interference, would need to be brought by a media outlet Trump targets. The same corporations caving to Trump probably won’t sue him. That’s unfortunate — principles aside, Trump has already shown that bending the knee doesn’t work. After ABC capitulated, he came after it again. It’s time to try a different approach.

But even if media companies don’t grow some courage, there could be avenues for others to sue. Unfair competition, and consumer fraud and deceptive business practices claims, depending on state law, may be available to impacted consumers, not just competing businesses. For example, a news publisher or reader who relied on the AP’s dispatches to their local newspaper until Trump banned his competitor may have remedies. So might someone (or a class of people) who wasted money on premium subscriptions to X based on Musk’s lies about his competition.

State attorneys general and other local authorities may be able to act as well. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an investigation into Media Matters for allegedly deceiving Texas consumers about hate speech on X. Paxton’s legal claims were unserious. Media Matters didn’t publish anything false. It’s also not a competitor of X and has never claimed to be.

But that doesn’t mean similar legal theories can’t succeed under different circumstances — like an actual self-proclaimed competitor of news outlets trying to sink their businesses with lies. Back in 2016, Trump settled a lawsuit alleging deceptive business practices (among other things) by then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman over Trump University’s shenanigans.

Yes, bringing these kinds of claims in cases involving the press could backfire by validating legal claims that could come back to bite journalists. That’s a legitimate concern, although the flip side is that they could force Trump and Musk to argue for limited readings of laws they’ve previously weaponized. But good lawyers should be able to navigate those minefields.

This is not a new problem — courts have long punished deceptive commercial speech while managing to distinguish it from journalism, political debate, and other constitutionally protected speech. As a completely random example, no one would suggest the First Amendment protects someone, say, hawking watches made in China and falsely marketing them as from Switzerland because it’s “free speech.”

Regardless, we’re living in unprecedented times and need to take more risks than we might prefer under normal circumstances. That doesn’t mean be reckless, but we can’t let hypothetical concerns about adverse precedents around the margins of constitutional law stop us from fighting back against someone who wants to destroy the First Amendment, full stop. If we pull punches in hopes of fighting another day, there might not be one.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

A federal judge ruled today that Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk must be released from U.S. custody. Öztürk was abducted by federal immigration authorities outside her home in Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25.

The only known evidence for deporting Öztürk was her co-authorship of an op-ed critical of Israel in a Tufts student newspaper, and Judge William Sessions III confirmed it “literally is the case there is no evidence here … absent consideration of the op-ed.”

Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), commented that “it is unfathomable that in the United States legal system, it takes 45 days for a judge to rule that people can’t be put behind bars for writing op-eds the government doesn’t like. Without a system committed to its principles, the Constitution is just words on paper, and they don’t mean much if this can happen here. Öztürk’s abduction and imprisonment is one of the most shameful chapters in First Amendment history. We’re thankful that Judge Sessions moved it one step closer to an end and we call on the Trump administration to release Öztürk immediately and not attempt to stall with any further authoritarian nonsense.”

Lauren Harper, FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, noted that the government has kept secret a memorandum, prepared before Öztürk’s detention and reported in The Washington Post, showing there were not sufficient grounds for revoking Öztürk’s visa. Harper has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the memorandum.

“The government is not allowed to hide information to prevent embarrassment or conceal wrongdoing, which is exactly what’s happening here, and Ms. Öztürk and her lawyers deserve to have access to information that could aid in her legal case. If the administration wants to not have to disclose embarrassing information about its actions, it should stop making up reasons to deport people,” said Harper.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Dear friend of press freedom,

A judge ordered Rümeysa Öztürk’s release today. But it's still the 45th day she spent incarcerated by the U.S. government for writing an op-ed. Hopefully this shameful chapter in First Amendment history is nearing a close. Other press freedom news below.

Memo obtained by FPF shows DOJ’s new anti-press policy is based on lies

Last week, we argued that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s reversal of her predecessor’s policy restricting subpoenas of journalists will help President Donald Trump lie to the public. 

This week we proved it. A memorandum released following a public records request by Lauren Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, confirmed prior reports that U.S. intelligence agencies don’t believe Trump’s claims that Venezuela’s government controls the Tren de Aragua gang. Bondi’s memo cited that same reporting as an example of damaging fake news that results from leaks. 

As it turns out, the journalists who reported the intelligence agencies’ position got it exactly right, and the leaks in question only damaged Trump’s reputation by exposing the deception behind his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to ship Venezuelans to gulags in El Salvador. What better way to further our late co-founder’s legacy than exposing presidential lies to justify atrocities abroad? Read our press release and the New York Times report. 

Attacks on law firms and nonprofits endanger the press

It doesn’t take a law degree to see that Trump’s attacks on law firms and nonprofits could also do irreparable harm to press freedom. 

To learn more about what’s at stake, we spoke to legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams; general counsel for The Intercept, David Bralow; and Albert Sellars, partner Kendra Albert. Read about and watch the conversation here. 

Ed Martin should be disbarred

Ed Martin, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was mostly in the news for palling around with white supremacists when Trump pulled his nomination for the permanent job as top prosecutor in Washington. But he’s also spent his career making a mockery of the ethical rules governing attorneys. 

That’s why Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and Demand Progress filed a comprehensive disciplinary complaint against Martin. As our Advocacy Director Seth Stern explained, Martin’s antics, like sending “bogus letters and tweets to intimidate people exercising First Amendment rights and his threats to target news outlets President Trump dislikes, should disqualify him from practicing law, full stop.” Read more here. 

Lights, camera, national security crisis! 

Trump’s recent announcement that he plans to impose a 100% tariff on movies made outside the United States has created more confusion than the ending of “Inception.”

What is Trump talking about when he claims that making movies abroad threatens national security? When Trump claims to be protecting the homeland from foreign adversaries, he is often actually protecting his own false narratives from domestic scrutiny. Read more here.

Administration seeks to appoint itself the sole arbiter of truth

Trump’s vilification of the press should be seen in the context of his larger agenda to discredit any arbiter of fact and fiction that has not kissed the ring.

The goal is to make Trump’s “alternative facts” the only facts. That’s why the administration is going after not only journalists, but everyone from prestigious universities in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to small medical journals in Glenview, Illinois. Read Stern’s op-ed in the Daily Beast here. 

What does Fullerton, California, have to hide?

We joined First Amendment Coalition in a letter objecting to a ban on newspaper distribution in government buildings by the city of Fullerton, California.

As the letter explains, “The ban sends the message … that the city is hostile to the free press and discourages criticism of its policies, preferring that residents only read government-approved messaging.” Read the letter here. 

What we’re reading

Fear and intimidation at Newark airport (Al Jazeera). A Palestinian-American journalist was interrogated at the border about her reporting, but she refuses to stay silent. Journalists must continue to speak up about these abuses.

Jury orders NSO to pay $167 million for hacking WhatsApp users (Ars Technica). NSO Group has a long history of helping dictators and authoritarians spy on journalists and activists. Hopefully, this multimillion-dollar verdict will finally get their attention.

Montana governor signs landmark bill, as state becomes the 37th to enact anti-SLAPP protections (Institute for Free Speech). Legislatures in red and blue states alike understand there’s nothing partisan about protecting journalists, activists, and everyone else from anti-speech lawfare.

Takeaways from AFPC-USA’s 2025 World Press Freedom Day panel (The Association of Foreign Press Correspondents USA). FPF’s Seth Stern’s “remarks painted a stark picture of press freedom under direct political attack. He warned that without structural protections, the First Amendment itself is being tested, and norms that were once assumed unbreakable are now being shattered.”

A student journalist covered a pro-Palestine protest. Soon, her graduation came under threat (Columbia Journalism Review). Columbia hit a new moral low by targeting a student journalist for her reporting on a pro-Palestinian sit-in before changing course. Lesson learned? Nope. The university then stooped even lower by suspending student journalists for covering protests.

It doesn’t take a law degree to see that President Donald Trump’s attacks on law firms and nonprofits could also do irreparable harm to press freedom.

Since January, Trump has strong-armed law firms and targeted nonprofits, launching salvos against institutions he sees as roadblocks on his path to greater political control.

To learn about what’s at stake, we spoke to legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams; general counsel for The Intercept, David Bralow; and Albert Sellars partner Kendra Albert at an online webinar May 2.

Albert kicked off the conversation by explaining the “dramatic chilling effect” of Trump’s executive orders against law firms that represented his political opponents or made legal arguments he didn’t agree with.

“Journalists need lawyers,” they said. “If you cow the lawyers from being able to take clients who are oppositional to the government, it’s going to harm the press.”

Last month, Albert co-authored an amicus brief in opposition to Trump’s attacks against the law firm Perkins Coie. It was signed by 61 media organizations, and led by The Intercept and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF). Hours after the webinar, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell struck down Trump’s order targeting Perkins Coie as unconstitutional.

As Bralow explained, there once was a time when small newsrooms could quickly and easily obtain pro bono legal support if they faced a First Amendment challenge, because there was an ecosystem “that was active and supportive for all these rights.” That ecosystem was already in shambles before Trump’s executive orders, he said.

“Trump’s order is just simply a frontal attack. Small news organizations simply cannot find the strong voices without the assurances that they have strong legal representation,” Bralow warned.

Abrams said that, compared to the present, the attacks on law firms he saw decades ago when he represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers era were “almost minor league.” Under former President Richard Nixon, for example, “There were real threats about the press” like Espionage Act prosecutions, he said, but “never anything like what we’re seeing today.”

“I can’t think of another public elected official that’s ever gone down this road,” he said of Trump.

While some law firms are challenging Trump in court, others aren’t. Abrams believes that, despite the risks, those capitulating to him should be counterattacking instead.

"This is not an effort to clean the legal landscape,” Abrams said of Trump’s actions. “It is to punish entities that he views as enemies.”

Albert is optimistic that Trump’s executive orders will continue to fail to withstand judicial scrutiny. “Judges, I think, have been receptive to the law firms’ arguments that these executive orders are unconstitutional,” Albert said.

Nonprofits, including some that are news organizations, also face significant risks. Trump has broadened the scope of his attacks to these institutions, threatening to revoke their tax-exempt statuses for taking positions or reporting stories he disagrees with.

“I don’t know how you can be a nonprofit that is trying to do right by its community, its employees, and the nation without having real significant concern right now for the sort of retaliation, the sort of the rhetoric that is coming out of the administration,” Bralow said.

He discussed how The Intercept, which is a nonprofit, has worked to “button up” and “Trump-proof” the organization. The Intercept is also helping others, including by relaunching the Press Freedom Defense Fund, which gives money to small newsrooms to address legal threats.

Abrams said that while law firms deserve a share of the criticism, we shouldn’t lose sight of who the villain is in this story. “One thing has to be clear: This is all the president’s fault,” Abrams said. “There is no equality of blame here.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Ed Martin, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has mostly been in the news lately for palling around with white supremacists. But he has also spent his career, including his current tenure as D.C.’s interim top prosecutor, making a mockery of the ethical and professional rules governing attorneys, while threatening the rule of law in the nation’s capital and beyond.

That’s why on Wednesday, Demand Progress and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) filed a comprehensive complaint, more than 20 pages long, with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the District of Columbia Bar, laying out a myriad of actions and decisions that clash with the ethics rules governing attorneys by Martin, who calls his public office “President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers.”

News broke on Thursday that President Donald Trump will pull Martin’s nomination for the permanent U.S. attorney post, but Trump said he still plans to find a place for Martin at the Department of Justice.

Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress, said, “Ed Martin is a grave threat to civil liberties and the rule of law, so any news indicating that he will no longer be President Trump’s legal point man in D.C. is good news for the nation. But this threat is far from over. Martin’s long, documented history of shamelessly playing politics with the rule of law should disqualify him from working anywhere in government, let alone the Justice Department. We call on President Trump to keep Martin far away from any position of power, especially one that requires sound legal judgment, and nominate someone for U.S. attorney for D.C. that actually respects the rule of law and Americans’ constitutional rights.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation Director of Advocacy Seth Stern said, “Martin’s antics, including his habit of sending bogus letters and tweets to intimidate people exercising First Amendment rights and his threats to target news outlets President Trump dislikes, should disqualify him from practicing law, full stop. We’re relieved that he won’t get the U.S. attorney job, but he should not be able to work for the government in any capacity, or to trade on his shameful interim tenure to find a cushy law firm job and further damage the legal profession.”

Martin’s shady behavior detailed in the complaint includes, among other things, frivolous threats against critics of Trump and Elon Musk, baseless partisan investigations into constitutionally protected statements by Democratic lawmakers, and public threats, made without legal basis or probable cause, to investigate targets whom he acknowledges have committed no crime.

The complaint also discusses his lack of credibility and candor while under oath during the U.S. Senate confirmation process for his U.S. attorney nomination, which includes his misleading turnabout on his disturbing connections to Nazi sympathizers and his pattern of failing to disclose hundreds of appearances on far-right and Russian-controlled media outlets. It lays out Martin’s history of serious lapses in ethical and professional judgment outside the national spotlight, as an attorney and politician in Missouri, to show that Martin’s disregard for the integrity of his profession is a long-standing problem that is unlikely to change.

The complaint asks the Disciplinary Counsel to investigate Martin’s conduct and to impose sanctions up to and including disbarment. It also urges the D.C. Bar to act promptly given the ongoing serious threat Martin’s ability to practice law poses.

You can read the complaint here. Please contact us if you would like further comment, or contact Eric Naing from Demand Progress at eric@demandprogress.org

The Trump administration’s hostility to First Amendment rights extends beyond the press to nonprofit organizations, museums, colleges, and anyone else who might question his infallibility.

But his targeting of the press is a key component of the administration’s effort to appoint itself the country’s sole arbiter of truth. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Advocacy Direction Seth Stern writes for the Daily Beast that in Trump’s view, “inconvenient truths and malicious lies are equally troublesome. They must be met with equal force.”

Stern urged journalists and others who value press freedom to treat these attacks not as passing storms but as existential threats.

Read Stern’s article here.

President Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he plans to impose a 100% tariff on movies made outside the United States has created more confusion than the ending of “Inception.”

But there are two important questions no one seems to be asking. Namely: What in the world is Trump talking about when he claims that making movies outside the U.S. is a national security threat? And why should anyone — let alone any court — ever take this administration seriously again when it claims national security is endangered?

In his Truth Social post about the movie tariff, Trump makes two main arguments (if you can call them that) based on national security. Both are completely unjustified.

First, he claims that the U.S. filmmaking industry is being “devastated” by other nations trying to lure moviemakers to their countries. “This is a concerted effort by other Nations,” he wrote, “and, therefore, a National Security threat.”

But economic harm doesn’t necessarily mean national security harm. While it may mean less money for parts of the American film industry, filming “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning” in Norway doesn’t make us less secure. Plus tariffs are a nonsensical way to safeguard national security — foreign adversaries can attack us as long as they pay a fine?

Also, some movies simply must be made outside the U.S. The last three winners of the Academy Award for Best Documentary — “No Other Land,” “20 Days in Mariupol,” and “Navalny” — were all filmed outside the U.S. because they told stories from outside the U.S. Slapping movies like those with tariffs will make them more expensive and less likely to be made or shown in the U.S., depriving Americans of important perspectives about what’s going on in the rest of the world.

Trump’s second national security argument is that foreign-made movies are “in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!” It’s a rich claim, given Hollywood’s history exporting U.S. propaganda and present-day examples of links between U.S. films and U.S. interests.

Trump’s national security claims are just like the movies: all smoke and mirrors.

It’s also essentially the same argument used by both Trump and former President Joe Biden to justify the TikTok ban, i.e., that foreign-made mass media threatens national security by exposing Americans to foreign propaganda. The Supreme Court got it wrong in upholding the TikTok ban. But it applied a lower level of First Amendment scrutiny to the law based on TikTok’s special characteristics, including its collection of vast amounts of data. That leniency shouldn’t apply to a tariff or other law that burdens speech simply because it’s created outside the U.S.

And have you noticed that we haven’t heard much about the app’s supposed massive threat to our national security lately? That’s because Trump no longer wants to ban it, now that he’s amassed millions of followers there and met with the Republican megadonor who also owns part of TikTok. The social platform continues to operate in the U.S., and somehow our national security has remained intact.

This all goes to show that, just like many other purported national security concerns, “propaganda” is simply a convenient argument for an administration to invoke when it suits its purposes and to discard when it doesn’t. Other administrations have also invoked national security when convenient to avoid hard questions or uncomfortable truths. But Trump is taking it to a whole new level.

According to Trump, almost anything can be justified by citing national security: deporting students who write op-eds critical of Israel in college newspapers, refusing to tell a judge what time U.S. planes carrying migrants took off, even attacking Greenland.

Most concerningly for journalists and their sources, the Trump administration has also launched numerous leak investigations and rolled back protections for journalists’ records, all in the name of national security. But documents released to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) via the Freedom of Information Act show that the reporting the administration cited to justify its crackdown on leaks to reporters did not threaten our national security as claimed.

Instead, they exposed that the administration’s justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans to El Salvador was rejected by American intelligence agencies. When Trump claims to be protecting the homeland from foreign adversaries he is often actually protecting his own false narratives from domestic scrutiny.

Many of these national security claims will be challenged in court, and all of them should be weighed skeptically in the court of public opinion. Given this administration’s track record, judges and the public must remember that Trump’s national security claims are just like the movies: all smoke and mirrors.

The Department of Justice is trying to make it easier for President Donald Trump to lie to the American public under the guise of cracking down on leaks.

On April 25, the DOJ announced the reversal of an internal policy that protected journalists from federal prosecutors seizing their records or forcing them to name their confidential sources. In a memo announcing the change, Attorney General Pam Bondi decried leaks that “undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people,” calling them “illegal and wrong.” The new policy was released May 1.

But the DOJ’s priority seems less about protecting the public and more about shielding the Trump administration from scrutiny. The news stories Bondi’s memo cited to justify the change don’t undermine or victimize anyone besides dishonest officials. They reported exactly the kind of news the American people deserve to know, and the administration would rather keep hidden.

In one footnote, Bondi’s memo links to reporting by The Washington Post and The New York Times about Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans that officials claim are members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Trump claims that the act provides a legal basis for the deportations because Tren de Aragua is invading the U.S. at the direction of the Venezuelan government.

The reporting, however, revealed that this isn’t true — not according to Trump’s own spy agencies, at least. Based on information from confidential sources, the Post and the Times reported that U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the gang is not directed by Venezuela’s government or committing crimes in the United States on its orders.

Another footnote in the memo links to a Reuters news story reporting that Dan Caldwell, an aide to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, had been put on leave as part of a Department of Defense leaks investigation. According to Axios, Caldwell and another official were suspended as part of an investigation into the leak of plans for a secret Pentagon briefing for Elon Musk on China. Although Trump denied the reporting as “fake news,” the embarrassing leak reportedly led him to personally ax the briefing.

The DOJ’s priority seems less about protecting the public and more about shielding the Trump administration from scrutiny.

Other recent news reports based on information from confidential sources within the government are in the same vein: embarrassing to the Trump administration, but not a threat to national security.

The Times, for instance, recently used information from confidential sources to report that Hegseth — already under scrutiny for Signalgate 1.0 — shared “detailed information about forthcoming strikes in Yemen” in a second private Signal group chat that included his wife, brother, and lawyer. Days later, The Post reported, again based on confidential sources, that Hegseth had Signal installed on a desktop computer in his Pentagon office.

These news reports raise important and legitimate questions about Hegseth’s ability to protect confidential government information. Yet while the Trump administration has steadfastly refused to hold Hegseth accountable for lapses that could result in the very kind of leaks that damage national security that Bondi condemns, it’s eager to prosecute whistleblowers. Changing the DOJ policy on legal demands to journalists is an important step in this campaign.

Bondi’s memo followed a request announced the previous day by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard for the DOJ to investigate leaks to the press. In the past, the DOJ has jailed or threatened to jail journalists who refused to name their confidential sources, and has secretly subpoenaed their phone and email records to search for their sources, sometimes while ignoring past internal policies.

But as bad as that track record is, this isn’t just a return to the status quo as of a few years ago, before the Biden administration enacted the policy Bondi repealed. This new one will be wielded by the most anti-press administration in American history, headed by a President who has called for journalists to be jailed and raped for refusing to name sources. Platitudes about press freedom are irrelevant in an administration that flouts Supreme Court rulings and is unlikely to be constrained by the precise wording of an internal policy.

Bondi’s mischaracterizations of leaks during Trump 2.0 can’t change that whistleblowers remain essential to the ability of the press to tell Americans the truth, rather than simply what the government wants us to know. From legendary Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg to Edward Snowden to countless others whose names we may never know, whistleblowers have been at the heart of some of the most important news stories in American history.

Trump wants to lie to us with impunity. Journalists and whistleblowers are one of the few things standing in his way.

While the Trump administration’s change to DOJ policy makes it riskier for journalists to do their jobs and for sources to expose officials’ lies, corruption, and crimes, undoubtedly many brave reporters and whistleblowers will continue to do just that.

They should be smart, and take steps to protect their digital and physical security. For example, SecureDrop, an open source whistleblower submission system from Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), allows for anonymous sharing of documents and tips.

But in the face of pervasive surveillance and an administration intent on identifying them, it’s possible the DOJ could unmask even the smartest and most careful sources. In that case, it will be up to the public to loudly and forcefully fight back against the Trump administration’s attempts to prosecute sources or the journalists who refuse to give up their names.

The public will only do that if it understands what press freedom means to our democracy and how severely attacks on journalist-source confidentiality can harm accountability. And that’ll only happen if journalists and editorial boards cover attacks on press freedom regularly and aggressively. The days of journalists not wanting to “make themselves the story” need to end – journalists aren’t making themselves the story, the administration is.

Trump wants to lie to us with impunity. Journalists and whistleblowers are one of the few things standing in his way. If the administration starts throwing them in jail — as the new DOJ policy will make it easier to do — we all must stand up for them.

This is the third in a series of profiles of independent journalists who use public records to hold local governments accountable. The second, about Hannah Bassett of the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, is here. The first, about Lisa Pickoff-White of the California Reporting Project, is here.

Michelle Pitcher knows a little something about the Texas criminal justice system.

The criminal justice reporter with the Texas Observer, who previously contributed to Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting at The Marshall Project, grew up in Dallas with family members incarcerated by the state.

But while Pitcher's investigative work gives her — and her readership — insight into the impact the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has on the lives of millions of Texans, it’s a complex that typically functions in the dark.

“I think that the system wouldn’t work without secrecy, or at least that’s the idea behind a lot of the actions and policies that happen in Texas prisons,” Pitcher said.

As a journalism master’s student at the University of California-Berkeley, Pitcher worked with The Marshall Project, which focuses exclusively on criminal justice and prisons reporting, on a Pulitzer-Prize winning story about the use of police dogs. “Ever since then, I’ve realized it’s really fulfilling and the area that I’m passionate about for personal and professional reasons,” Pitcher added.

But that doesn’t make the work any easier.

Access to public records in Texas is often blocked by officials hiding behind broad security and privacy excuses, making it difficult for journalists and the public alike to ask questions and get answers. Even when records requests are ultimately not denied, delays can still obstruct newsgathering.

“Even if the attorney general’s office ultimately decides I should get those records, months have passed,” Pitcher said.

But to Pitcher, these obstacles are just that — she’ll follow records requests for a year if she has to, or visit public information officers all over the state in person to obtain the information she needs.

“These laws and policies are in place to make it explicitly difficult to get answers to questions to see what’s going on,” Pitcher said. “If you request documents, there are dozens of exceptions that prison officials can cite.”

Officials often just raise blanket security concerns. “A lot of it is up to the warden’s discretion, too,” Pitcher added. “It’s all very tight-lipped by design.”

To fill in the gaps left by a lack of access to records, Pitcher relies on incarcerated people to tell their stories and show the public what is happening behind closed doors.

"These laws and policies are in place to make it explicitly difficult to get answers"

“People are very brave and very willing to talk, knowing that it’s not going to be a secret and still willing to talk on the record,” Pitcher said. “As journalists, we should be seeking the people who are willing to tell those stories, because no one wants to feel like they’re shouting into the abyss. And people are shouting. People do want to talk.”

That said, the state prison makes it difficult for journalists to access the people incarcerated within the system, prohibiting journalists from interviewing the same person more than once within 90 days and limiting visits to an hour.

Pitcher uses her reporting to push past barriers — monitoring of emails and letters to incarcerated sources, guards and escorts present during media visits at prisons, incarcerated people moved across facilities — so she can inform the community.

“I’ve had it happen on multiple occasions where I was supposed to interview someone at a unit three hours away, and the day before the interview [they’re] at a different unit five hours away now,” Pitcher said. Although she has the geographical flexibility to follow her sources and navigate delay tactics, she says that is unfortunately “not possible for a lot of newsrooms” in the state.

Last year, Pitcher co-authored a story about the 200-year-long history of prison labor in Texas that pieced together prison reports, testimony, court filings, interviews of incarcerated people, and more to uncover the working conditions and death rates of these prison-run farms — some of which continue operating today.

To obtain these records, Pitcher and her team combined their reporting strategies and combed through the archives at the state libraries, filed records requests, and interviewed incarcerated individuals who had been injured while working.

Despite the obstacles in accessing information about current events in the prison system, Pitcher said that “Texas has a terrible history, and it’s all documented at the state libraries.”

“We had past, we had present, and we had official reports,” Pitcher said. “We had anecdotes, we had data. And it was just so rewarding to be able to put together a full picture.”

Although receiving her master’s in journalism helped shape her career path and train her in public records-seeking, Pitcher emphasized that anybody who wants to find out more about our government can request public records and report on them.

“As journalists, we have no real special rights or powers,” Pitcher said. “We are just members of the public who are availing ourselves of public record laws. All you have to do to be a journalist is do journalism with ethics.”

For more on this topic, see our two-part series on covering the mass incarceration system.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

This week, we take a look back at Trump 2.0’s first 100 days — and catch us live May 2, 2025, at 1 p.m. Eastern time for a discussion on the administration’s unprecedented attack on law firms and what they mean for the press. 

100 days, 100 attacks on the press, and counting

The second Trump administration’s 100th day came and went this week, but the attacks on the press and transparency kept coming. 

Our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has a recap of some of the major press freedom violations it’s documented so far. We also put together a list of 100 times President Donald Trump and his team targeted the Fourth Estate. Here it is on Bluesky and X. 

It’s alarming how easy it was to get to that number. Before the ink dried, there were a couple more, including Trump’s ludicrous threat to sue The New York Times for “tortious interference” for quoting legal experts on the weakness of his frivolous shakedown of a lawsuit against CBS News. 

And to combat the excessive secrecy that defined this administration’s first few months, we also launched The Classified Catalog, a secrecy news tracker to help the public hold the government accountable. 

Department of Justice repeals protections for journalist-source confidentiality

Attorney General Pam Bondi has rescinded her predecessor’s policy restricting federal prosecutors from forcing journalists to reveal sources. 

As Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Director of Advocacy Seth Stern said, “Everyone predicted this would happen in a second Trump administration, yet politicians in a position to prevent it prioritized empty rhetoric over putting up a meaningful fight.” Read our full statement. 

Using public records to break through the secrecy of the Texas prison system

Our series highlighting local journalists using public records to speak truth to power continues with a profile of Michelle Pitcher, a reporter at the Texas Observer who focuses on criminal justice.

Public records alone can’t tell the story, though — only those living it can. “As journalists, we should be seeking the people who are willing to tell those stories because no one wants to feel like they’re shouting into the abyss. And people are shouting. People do want to talk,” Pitcher said. Read more here. 

Rural America needs public media

We partnered with Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists to lead a letter urging congressional leadership to reject the White House’s request to rescind funds appropriated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 

The letter explains that “the harm of these cuts will disproportionately befall rural American communities. Less densely populated parts of the country tend to have fewer options for reliable news sources. ... When people lose access to their local media, they’re forced to turn instead to national media, which are less attuned to the needs of their communities.” Read the letter here.  

What we’re reading

100 days of attacks on transparency and the press (The Dissenter). FPF’s Seth Stern and Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper joined The Dissenter’s podcast to talk about the state of press freedom and transparency 100 days into Trump 2.0. 

Alarm bells: Trump’s first 100 days ramp up fear for the press, democracy (Committee to Protect Journalists). “I really think we’re just beginning to understand the impact of, for example, removing the AP’s access, and what that will do to local news organizations,” said Kirstin McCudden, Managing Editor of our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. 

Trump’s war on the press: 10 numbers from the US President’s first 100 days (Reporters Without Borders ). RSF lays out 10 key numbers that illustrate the administration’s unconstitutional assaults on press freedom and the right to reliable information.

Trump v. 60 Minutes is a stunning battle for the soul of US media (The Guardian). “In addition to all the principled reasons to not cave to Trump, there’s also the practical one that it doesn’t work,” Stern explained to The Guardian. “He will be right back at your door with his hands out the next day.”

Democrats had a shot at protecting journalists from Trump. They blew it (The Intercept). “Last year, Senate Democrats had a clear opportunity to make basic protections for journalists a matter of binding federal law, rather than mere policy that could be undone with a vendetta-laced memo … then Democratic leaders blew it.” 

The legal battle for DOGE transparency (Columbia Journalism Review). “More transparency means less corruption and potential for state capture. It’s an existential issue, and not one that our federal records laws or the people in the bureaucracy are equipped to deal with,” Harper told CJR.

US attorney for DC accuses Wikipedia of ‘propaganda,’ threatens nonprofit status (The Washington Post). Practically everything Ed Martin says is nonsense, but the one thing that’s totally believable is he doesn’t know federal prosecutors don’t investigate nonprofits’ tax compliance. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi has reportedly rescinded her predecessor’s policy restricting federal prosecutors from forcing journalists to reveal their sources. Her memo follows news that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard asked the Department of Justice to investigate recent leaks to reporters.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Director of Advocacy Seth Stern said:

“Every Democrat who put the PRESS Act on the back burner when they had the opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill codifying journalist-source confidentiality should be ashamed. Everyone predicted this would happen in a second Trump administration, yet politicians in a position to prevent it prioritized empty rhetoric over putting up a meaningful fight.

Because of them, a president who threatens journalists with prison rape for protecting their sources and says reporting critically on his administration should be illegal can and almost certainly will abuse the legal system to investigate and prosecute his critics and the journalists they talk to.”

The PRESS Act, which would have prohibited the government from compelling journalists to burn sources except in life-or-death emergencies, twice passed the House unanimously.

It had bipartisan support in the Senate, including from Republican co-sponsors Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Lindsey Graham. It was endorsed by everyone from the New York Times editorial board to former Fox News journalist Catherine Herridge.

Yet it spent months stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite the best efforts of Lee and co-sponsor Sen. Ron Wyden to move it forward. Then, President Donald Trump was elected and instructed Republicans to kill the bill in a Truth Social post.

The Biden administration also deserves blame, not only for failing to vocally support the PRESS Act but for the bogus criminal theories it pursued against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Florida journalist Tim Burke under the Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, respectively. Biden’s validation of those theories provides Trump with significant leverage against journalists who publish secrets provided by sources.

The only good news is that those prosecutions – as well as Trump and others’ insistence that routine journalism should be illegal – opens a door for journalists who are subpoenaed to invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That would effectively dare Trump’s administration to grant immunity to reporters he calls “enemies of the people.”

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Here’s what we’re focused on this week, as officials across America continue their attacks on the free press.

Administration must release memos on abduction of op-ed writer

Secretary of State Marco Rubio claims the authority to unilaterally declare students who protest the Israel-Gaza war antisemites and terrorism supporters in order to kick them out of the country. 

So when even Rubio’s State Department doubts the government has grounds to deport a student — especially an anti-war student from the Middle East — the administration’s position must be exceptionally weak. In the case of Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, it is. According to The Washington Post, internal government memos admit that the only “evidence” against her was her co-authoring an op-ed criticizing the war and that, to state the obvious, this evidence is legally insufficient to justify deportation. 

The administration needs to make these memos public. Read more here.

Journalist targeted by Trump 1.0 discusses Trump 2.0

When The Associated Press didn’t bow to President Donald Trump’s demand to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” he barred the news service from events in the Oval Office and on Air Force One. And when a judge deemed that decision unconstitutional, he spiked the permanent press pool slot for wire services entirely.

This (un)constitutional experiment started in his first term, when he revoked the credentials of individual journalists he disliked, including Brian Karem, a former White House correspondent who covered Trump for Playboy.

Karem spoke about that experience and today’s press restrictions in a webinar hosted by Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) last week. He was joined by Caitlin Vogus, senior adviser at FPF, and Stephanie Sugars, who regularly reports on issues of press access to the White House as senior reporter for the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of FPF. You can watch and read about the conversation here.

Investigating Medicaid fraud through public records 

Our series on local journalists who use public-records-based reporting to make a difference continues with a profile of Hannah Bassett, who helped expose a deadly Medicaid fraud scheme targeting Native American communities in Arizona. 

“In Arizona, the public records statute allows for the state agencies to claim an exemption if a record is in the state’s interest to withhold,” Bassett explained. “It’s understandable that some information coming out might not be in an agency’s interest, but that doesn’t mean it’s not in the public’s interest.”

Read more about Bassett and her reporting here.

Streisand wouldn’t let the U.S. government rain on Ellsberg’s parade

Happy birthday to Barbra Streisand, whose 1973 fundraiser kept our co-founder Daniel Ellsberg’s legal fight alive long enough for him to win.

“Indirectly, that ability to keep the trial going and his case getting kicked led to the whole uncovering of the Watergate scandal, which led to the downfall of Nixon, which led to him not dropping nuclear weapons on Vietnam,” documentarian Paul Jay told the Hollywood Reporter after Ellsberg died in 2023. 

She kept Ellsberg out of jail for leaking the Pentagon Papers; now we’re continuing his fight to defend whistleblowers.

What we’re reading

Keep Texas free speech strong. Leave anti-SLAPP laws alone (Houston Chronicle). Two bills before the Texas Legislature would undermine critical protections against frivolous lawsuits by the powerful to censor their critics. Lawmakers need to listen to the bipartisan backlash and reject the bills.

Judge declines AP challenge to new White House press pool policy, but says time will tell whether wire service still gets “second class treatment” (Deadline). Any judge willing to put blinders on to presume this administration is acting in “good faith” is unfit for this moment, and probably any moment. The one thing the administration has been transparent about is its bad-faith motives for retaliating against the Associated Press.

Police officers who joined Jan. 6 rally ask Supreme Court for anonymity (The Washington Post). It sounds like the requester could just copy the officers’ brief on why their identities shouldn’t be disclosed and recaption it as a brief on why their identities should be disclosed. The First Amendment does not protect public officials from being embarrassed by their unpopular opinions. 

FCC chair threatens Comcast licenses for alleged ‘news distortion’ (U.S. Press Freedom Tracker). Legally speaking, the idea of punishing reporting critical of the president’s policies as outside the “public interest” is laughable. But unfortunately we have an FCC chair who traded in his law books for a Trump lapel pin.

As in DC, a fight breaks out in Washington state over who gets access to lawmakers (Investigate West). We told Investigate West that “Now that there are so many independent journalists out there, politicians are taking it upon themselves to be the judge of who is and isn’t a journalist.”

Here’s how to share sensitive leaks with the press.