a Better Bubble™

Freedom of the Press

Amid war, Pentagon quashing of reporter access is blatant censorship

1 day 14 hours ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

A judge today ruled in favor of The New York Times in its challenge to the Trump administration’s unconstitutional policy restricting journalists’ access to the Pentagon unless they agree not to publish information that officials don’t authorize for release.

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

“The judge was right to see the Pentagon’s outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn’t exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy. It’s shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal.

“Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press ‘the most serious and the least tolerable’ of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat — like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security. Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn’t authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation.

“It’s unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon’s ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting ‘authorized’ narratives.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

FCC chair seeks Iran-style media obedience

1 day 19 hours ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Estefany Rodríguez is free on bond, thanks to her lawyers and support from press freedom supporters like you. While we celebrate Rodríguez’s release, the government’s effort to deport her continues (you can speak out against it using our action center), and new threats to wartime reporting and Americans’ privacy are closing in. Read the latest on how you can protect the free press.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr seeks Iran-style media obedience

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr is again openly abusing his power, this time to attack news outlets that displeased President Donald Trump with their reporting on the war in Iran.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus wrote in The Guardian this week about how Trump and Carr apparently want a press that operates more like that in Iran: largely obedient, state-run broadcasters that air propaganda praising a supreme leader and his wars. Newsrooms, lawmakers, and the public must push back. We also discussed Carr’s unconstitutional antics on MeidasTouch’s Legal AF podcast.

Tell Congress: Reform Section 702

Next week, the House of Representatives is expected to vote to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without making any changes to rein in the government’s power to spy on Americans without a warrant.

Section 702’s mass warrantless surveillance authority has a long history of abuse, including against journalists. Congress should not renew the law without significant reforms that will protect journalists and all Americans.

Use our action center to tell lawmakers not to reauthorize Section 702 of FISA without key privacy changes.

Trump’s massive, secret government database

FPF Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper wrote in The Intercept this week about how the Trump administration is on its way to creating every authoritarian’s dream: A centralized database containing intimate details about every resident of this country.

Agencies are reportedly pooling vast amounts of people’s personal data to create a powerful tool that would empower the government to conduct previously unimagined levels of surveillance and harassment.

The public deserves to fully understand just how badly Americans’ data and privacy have been compromised. That’s why FPF is suing for documents behind the database.

Attorney discipline boards must step up

The D.C. Bar’s decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against disgraced Department of Justice lawyer Ed Martin has been viewed by some as a triumph for the rule of law. Not so fast, we say.

Don’t get us wrong — Martin should be disbarred. But he can’t be the sole sacrificial lamb. There have been plenty of well-founded complaints against Trump administration lawyers filed in Washington and elsewhere, but few go anywhere.

FPF’s Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern wrote about disciplinary complaints filed by us and others against government officials and lawyers whose conduct threatens First Amendment rights. Hopefully, the Martin investigation is the start of attorney discipline boards showing some backbone.

Two new must-reads on free speech and digital freedoms

Two of the biggest names in digital rights have just dropped must-read books.

In “Transaction Denied,” FPF board President Rainey Reitman writes about the shadow world of financial censorship, examining how banks and payment intermediaries shape and censor speech, and gives her firsthand account of co-founding FPF. A portion of every book sale goes to support our work.

In “Privacy Defender,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Executive Director (and longtime FPF legal counsel) Cindy Cohn dives into her 30-year fight against electronic surveillance. Buy your copy today to learn about — and help protect — digital rights.

What we're reading I asked why immigration officers tripled in 30 days. The answer: A $48,000 bill Two Can Be True

A great way to deal with Freedom of Information Act stonewalling: Report the news you can and explain why the government’s bad faith stopped you from reporting more.

National parks employees say SFGate has been blacklisted by the Interior Department SFGate

Denying a media request because a ranger would need to speak Spanish — under the guise of “English is the official language of the U.S.” — is both wrong and plain dumb. Ojalá que no vengan con esas pendejadas la próxima vez.

CNN’s missed opportunity Columbia Journalism Review

The Ellisons are “willing to throw the economic interests of their news holdings under the bus if it boosts their other business before the Trump administration,” FPF’s Stern explained.

Governor Rhoden approves anti‑SLAPP law, 11 other justice measures KOTA

Good news: Gov. Larry Rhoden signed into law a bill protecting South Dakotans from strategic lawsuits against public participation. Red, blue, and purple states know there’s nothing partisan about protecting against anti-speech lawfare.

As Trump pushes deportations, immigration data becomes harder to find The Associated Press

The Trump administration undoubtedly knows that missing and inconsistent immigration data makes it harder for journalists to fact check government lies and inconsistencies.

Upcoming events

Join us at the events below; click on the flyers for more information, including on how to register.

FPF is proud to co-host the opening screening of “Steal This Story, Please!” — a documentary on journalist Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm will deliver opening remarks, followed by a Q&A with Goodman and Oscar-nominated filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin.

Get your tickets today: Use code GOODMAN-15 for a $15 ticket.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Ed Martin probe isn’t enough. Attorney discipline boards must step up

1 week 1 day ago

Last June, Washington’s D.C. Bar members said “not on our watch.” They overwhelmingly rejected Brad Bondi, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s brother, in his campaign for the bar’s presidency. Many feared Bondi would defang the bar’s disciplinary board (which he would not have directly controlled), so his defeat was framed as a triumph for the rule of law.

Some might see this week’s news that the D.C. Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against disgraced Department of Justice lawyer Ed Martin as validating that sentiment. I’m not so sure.

Don’t get me wrong — Martin should be disbarred. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) partnered with Demand Progress on a complaint last May over his ridiculous threats against people who criticized the Trump administration — including when an article in Wired identified inexperienced employees at the Department of Government Efficiency.

But Martin can’t be the sole sacrificial lamb. If investigations are reserved for attorneys as brazenly lawless as him, that’s quite a low bar (pun intended). There have been plenty of well-founded complaints against Trump administration lawyers filed in Washington and elsewhere since Bondi’s loss. Few go anywhere.

The need to act is clear. A November study found that dozens of courts have called out government lawyers for misrepresentations. Judges are (finally) threatening them with contempt for their antics, but the courage hasn’t spread to disciplinary offices, which have the power to disbar and suspend lawyers.

For example, a disciplinary complaint from FPF against Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr last July detailed Carr’s assistance to President Donald Trump, whose gilded face he wears as a lapel pin, in laundering an alleged bribe through the courts. Carr stalled CBS parent Paramount’s merger with Skydance, finally approving it two days after Paramount paid Trump $16 million to settle his frivolous lawsuit over an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

Hopefully, the Martin investigation is the start of attorney discipline boards showing some backbone.

The D.C. Bar’s December letter dismissing the complaint said the allegations “do not align with the language of those Rules and how they have been applied” by appellate courts, also noting supposed ambiguity in First Amendment law governing broadcasters.

It’s no surprise that there is no precedent specifically prohibiting FCC chairs from helping presidents extort licensees with frivolous lawsuits. The rules are broad because unethical antics are unpredictable. One prohibits “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” Another restricts “Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The First Amendment has nothing to do with the impropriety of facilitating bribery.

The D.C. Bar is not the only one reluctant to stick its neck out. Maryland’s Attorney Grievance Commission ducked another complaint against Carr, from the Campaign for Accountability, about his infamous “easy way or the hard way” ultimatum to pressure Disney to pull Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show. Its rules, it said, allow (but don’t require) it to dismiss complaints that aren’t based on firsthand knowledge. It’s not like they were being asked to investigate rumors — Carr’s threat was on a recorded podcast — but they saw an opening to shrivel away and shrank through it.

Virginia’s state bar has joined its cowardly comrades around the Beltway. Last month, federal Judge William B. Porter chewed out prosecutor Gordon D. Kromberg for omitting the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 — which restricts seizures of newsgathering materials — from his warrant application for the January raid of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home. Many experts believe the Natanson raid violated the act, and Porter said he may not have authorized it had the law been disclosed.

The DOJ’s stunt backs disciplinary offices into a corner — if they shy away from actionable complaints, they look like capitulators.

Before Porter gave Kromberg a piece of his mind, FPF filed an ethics complaint against him in Virginia, where he is licensed, about the omission. But the disciplinary board said it’s up to judges to decide whether attorneys have misrepresented the law — a perplexing position when the rules the board enforces expressly obligate lawyers to disclose authority that is adverse to their positions. Virginia cited a similar cop-out to not investigate embattled ex-prosecutor Lindsey Halligan. It’s reminiscent of Florida’s bar concocting a policy of not investigating federal officials to avoid investigating Attorney General Bondi.

We resubmitted the complaint about Kromberg after the judge made his position clear. Crickets.

Yet despite the inaction, the administration sees disciplinary offices as threats (or scapegoats). Last week, it proposed a rule empowering itself to “request” state bars suspend probes of prosecutors so the DOJ can investigate first, presumably from behind its giant North Korea-esque Trump banner. It says it “shall take appropriate action” if requests are ignored.

The proposal is nonsensical. The DOJ can already “request” state bars’ deference, just like I can call Domino’s and “request” free pizza, but there is no “appropriate action” either of us can take to get our way. Federal law says government attorneys are subject to state rules. Ironically, the proposal is so absurd that a lawyer defending it might violate their ethical obligations.

But the DOJ’s stunt nonetheless backs disciplinary offices into a corner — if they shy away from actionable complaints, they look like capitulators, just like the law firms that humiliated themselves by buckling to Trump.

Hopefully, the Martin investigation is the start of attorney discipline boards showing some backbone. We’ll see. FPF filed another complaint last month, with New York’s Attorney Grievance Committee, about government lawyer Sean Skedzielewski’s claims to a federal judge in Chicago that riots by “violent terrorist organizations” justified Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s rampage against the First Amendment.

As with regulators facilitating presidential shakedowns, no one ever thought to write a rule prohibiting government lawyers from fabricating terrorist invasions. The easy way out is there for the taking.

Seth Stern

How the powerful hijack ‘doxxing’ to hide the truth

1 week 1 day ago

Government officials have discovered a new tactic for attacking reporting they don’t like: They just call it “doxxing.”

At the federal, state, and local levels, authorities are increasingly stretching the term doxxing beyond recognition to threaten journalists who report about immigration enforcement, potential misconduct by elected and appointed officials, and military actions.

Unfortunately, this reframing of routine journalism as doxxing works all too often exactly as intended, chilling reporting and leaving the public less informed.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) recently spoke to four reporters who have firsthand experience facing accusations of doxxing based on their reporting, along with the harassment and legal threats that often followed. We discussed how this tactic works, and how journalists and others can fight back.

“Framing people who are in positions of, frankly, incredible power in the government — which we all pay taxes to and all deserve transparency from — as victims of doxxing for just naming what their roles are and what they’re supposedly doing is a great way to continue to demonize media,” Vittoria Elliott, a reporter for Wired, explained.

Elliott described how she was harassed online and faced legal threats from the Department of Justice after her reporting about the young engineers who held power at DOGE.

Elliott urged news media companies to recognize that journalists now report in an environment where the government is actively attempting to criminalize certain elements of their work. Journalists and media organizations must be “clear eyed” about the risks, she said, and explain the process of journalism to the public, while also doing more to “prepare for the fact that elements of our jobs are going to be recategorized as criminal activity.”

Doug Sovern, a former investigative reporter and political reporter for San Francisco’s KCBS radio, agreed that the “doxxing” label is a tactic of demonization, adding that government officials “also know that some media will back down” when faced with even spurious accusations of doxxing.

After the Federal Communications Commission threatened the license of KCBS for reporting on an immigration raid that happened in public, the station’s corporate owner “started basically spiking interviews,” Sovern said, “out of fear of more reprisal or antagonizing the Trump administration.”

“There’s been no loss of license. Nothing’s happened,” Sovern added. “But there was so much fear on the part of our corporation and their bottom line that it really had a chilling effect on everything we were doing in the political space.”

Gregory Royal Pratt, an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune, spoke about the harassment and threats he faced after a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson condemned him for reporting on a public immigration raid in Chicago. He echoed Elliott and Sovern, explaining that doxxing accusations are “clearly a very deliberate thing meant to intimidate me out of reporting.”

“At least for a moment I thought about it,” Pratt added, “Then it’s like, ‘All right, let’s get back to work.’”

Pratt also hailed as “American heroes” the ordinary people who record immigration agents in public and are themselves often accused of doxxing. “People recording and documenting history as it happens, without interfering, without being violent,” he said, “is really, really important.” He added that journalists and the public “would not be getting the truth out of the federal government without it.”

Charlie Kratovil, the founder and editor of New Brunswick Today, described his legal challenge to Daniel’s Law in New Jersey, which ultimately resulted in a loss before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Under the law, which prohibits the publication of certain information about government or law enforcement officials, “We’ve seen governments wholesale just remove all kinds of records from the internet that used to be public, whether it’s property records, financial disclosure statements — and for people who are not police, not law enforcement, not judges,” Kratovil said. “The seemingly endless expansion of this is only going to lead to more corruption and more crime and people getting away with it,” he added.

Watch the whole event here.

If you’re a journalist facing online harassment as a result of your reporting, check out Freedom of the Press Foundation’s resource page on preparing for online harassment or request a training with our Digital Security Training team.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Pass the Daniel Ellsberg Act!

1 week 1 day ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Another journalist, Estefany Rodríguez, sits in Immigration and Customs Enforcement lockup amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on press freedom. Read on for more about how you can help free Rodríguez and support a new bill to reform the Espionage Act.

Tell Congress to protect journalists and whistleblowers

This week, Rep. Rashida Tlaib introduced the Daniel Ellsberg Press Freedom and Whistleblower Protection Act to reform the archaic Espionage Act and stop prosecutors from treating reporters and their sources like spies. We’re honored that the bill is named after our late co-founder, Ellsberg, the legendary Pentagon Papers whistleblower and former Espionage Act defendant.

For decades, the Espionage Act has been used to chill national security reporting. The first Trump administration used it to charge WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — a prosecution that shamefully continued under President Joe Biden. Now, the Trump administration is arguing that journalists violate the law when they report government secrets.

Use our new action center to tell your members of Congress to support the Ellsberg Act.

Watch our online event introducing the Ellsberg Act

We also co-hosted an online event announcing the bill featuring Tlaib, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Executive Director Trevor Timm, FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper, Ellsberg’s son Robert Ellsberg, and Defending Rights & Dissent Policy Director Chip Gibbons.

Free Estefany Rodríguez from ICE

Nashville, Tennessee, journalist Estefany Rodríguez was arrested by federal immigration agents on flimsy “gotcha” charges last week. Her lawyers say she was targeted because she reported critically about the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

It wouldn’t surprise us, given the administration’s horrendous record of targeting immigrants over constitutionally protected speech. Needless arrests of noncitizen journalists silence the very reporters best positioned to cover ICE’s impact on their communities.

Use our action center to tell lawmakers to help free Rodríguez.

The Oscars in solitary confinement

Footage captured by Raoul Poole, Robert Earl Council, and Melvin Ray using contraband cell phones to circumvent prison censorship is the centerpiece of HBO’s “The Alabama Solution,” which is up for an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature this weekend.

But while the academy deliberated, the three individuals who made the film possible sat in extreme solitary confinement.

FPF Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern, along with incarcerated journalist and FPF columnist Jeremy Busby and Corinne Shanahan of the Institute to End Mass Incarceration, wrote for Inquest that “the United States may sometimes protect those who expose tyranny abroad (at least when the tyrants are geopolitical adversaries), but those who shine a light on abuses back home are on their own.”

Judge’s rebuke of DOJ in journalist raid case exposes bigger problem

A judge who approved the search warrant for the raid of Washington Post journalist Hannah Natanson’s home has recently chastised prosecutors for failing to tell him about a federal law that limits such raids, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980.

But Judge William Porter’s rebuke sparked a debate: Isn’t it the judge’s job to know the law himself? FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus explains that the answer is more complicated than it may seem.

Appeals court picks the wrong constitutional emergency

A federal appeals court last week vacated an order from an already dismissed lawsuit that had limited the Department of Homeland Security’s tactics against journalists and protesters in the Chicago area.

Stern wrote for the Chicago Tribune that if appellate courts are looking for rulings to vacate unasked, they should focus on those that facilitate censorship and impunity, rather than those that restrain tear gas and rubber bullets.

Filming federal agents in the field

Most guidance for journalists on filming federal agents — which can be deadly these days — is aimed at those in newsrooms with resources. Yet many independent and freelance journalists are working on the ground right now without such institutional support.

Our digital security team spoke with two such independent journalists about how they approach filming federal officers.

What we're reading DHS ousts CBP privacy officers who questioned ‘illegal’ orders Wired

The department’s retaliation against Freedom of Information Act officers for making lawful releases is a blatant abuse of power.

Pentagon bars press photographers over ‘unflattering’ Hegseth photos The Washington Post

Are we supposed to believe Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth when he says he restricts press access for national security? Hegseth only cares about his own image, and all of his censorship should be taken in that context.

Inside the legal defense of Georgia Fort and Don Lemon Columbia Journalism Review

The government’s claims in the Lemon and Fort cases that prosecutors are “the arbiters of journalistic practice” is deeply chilling, as Joel Simon writes.

DOJ attorney faces complaint for saying Chicago-area protests were led by ‘terrorist organizations’ Block Club Chicago

FPF filed this complaint because fabricating a violent terrorist invasion of an American city to justify suppressing First Amendment rights is “an effort to subvert the rule of law,” Stern explains.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Judge’s rebuke of DOJ in raid on journalist’s home exposes bigger problem

1 week 3 days ago

A judge who approved the search warrant that led to a raid on journalist Hannah Natanson’s home has recently chastised prosecutors for failing to tell him about a federal law that limits such raids. Judge William B. Porter said that prosecutors should have informed him about the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a law that forbids almost all search warrants targeting journalists.

But Porter’s rebuke sparked a debate: Isn’t it the judge’s job to know the law himself?

The answer is more complicated than it may seem at first. It’s true that we generally expect judges to know the law, and they have law clerks who help them research relevant statutes and precedents. But judges and their staffs are human, and the legal system is designed with that in mind. Our adversarial system, with prosecutors and defense attorneys on opposite sides, encourages lawyers to make sure a judge knows about the facts or law that helps their case or harms their opponent.

Sometimes, however, that system breaks down or isn’t followed. For example, when the government applies for a search warrant, there is no opposing side. Only prosecutors and law enforcement officers make their case to a judge. The person targeted by the search warrant doesn’t even know about it, let alone get a chance to oppose it.

In those situations, we rely not only on the judge’s acumen but also attorneys’ ethical obligations. Attorneys have an ethical duty to inform the court of any relevant law, even if it hurts their case. They can argue that the law doesn’t apply, but they can’t pretend it doesn’t exist. Prosecutors, in particular, are also supposed to seek justice, not just win cases.

That didn’t happen in the Natanson case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg knew about the Privacy Protection Act but chose not to mention it in the government’s request for a search warrant targeting Natanson’s home and devices, part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of leaking to the press.

Kromberg told Porter the omission was because of Department of Justice memos that said that the act didn’t apply in circumstances like Natanson’s, “when there was a reason to believe that the individual who maintained the information was involved in the offense.” But the decision of whether the act applied or barred the search warrant was one for the court to make, not prosecutors.

It’s deeply alarming to have DOJ lawyers decide they don’t have to tell judges about the Privacy Protection Act when they’ve unilaterally decided it doesn’t apply because a reporter is “involved” in a crime. For one thing, the DOJ’s determination that Natanson was “involved” in an offense because she allegedly received classified documents from a source relies on a deeply controversial reading of criminal law. For another, failing to mention the act also makes it more likely courts will simply overlook it.

It’s deeply alarming to have DOJ lawyers decide they don’t have to tell judges about the Privacy Protection Act when they’ve unilaterally decided it doesn’t apply.

That’s because the Privacy Protection Act is a little-known law that most judges have probably never heard of. After all, the government doesn’t apply for a search warrant to raid newsrooms or journalists’ homes every day (though it does it more often than it should, and judges’ apparent ignorance of the act suggests a real need for more judicial training).

But unless something changes, real accountability for following such an unethical policy may be elusive. We filed an ethics complaint with the Virginia State Bar, arguing that Kromberg violated his ethical duties by failing to disclose the law to the court in the Natanson case. The bar punted on the complaint, saying it was a matter for the court to handle. We resubmitted the complaint after Porter’s remarks, but have not yet heard back.

Meanwhile, the DOJ is trying to make it harder for state bars to investigate federal prosecutors at all. Porter’s admonishment of Kromberg, while embarrassing, is hardly a strong deterrent toward future omissions.

Even worse, the government may still get the information it wanted from Natanson as a result of a raid that never should have happened in the first place. While Porter refused to allow the DOJ to search Natanson’s seized materials, he decided instead to search them himself. After his search, Porter will give prosecutors anything he finds that’s relevant to their leak investigation.

The DOJ has also demanded that the court turn over any classified material found on Natanson’s devices, whether it relates to the original leak investigation or not, and it’s appealing Porter’s ruling restricting its ability to conduct its own search.

In the end, then, the DOJ may get most of what it wants and suffer nothing more than a public scolding. That sends a terrible message. If prosecutors believe they can sidestep the Privacy Protection Act without consequence, then its protections become largely meaningless. Although journalists can file lawsuits to recover damages for violations of the act, even that apparently operates as very little deterrent.

The solution is to create consequences that matter. Congress should investigate whether the DOJ is operating under a formal or informal policy that tells prosecutors to omit or downplay the Privacy Protection Act in search warrant applications. Judges must be better trained on the act and start enforcing lawyers’ ethical duties with sanctions and other real consequences, not just finger-wagging. State bar associations must do their jobs and actually enforce ethical standards when prosecutors cross the line.

Without these reforms, the next time a journalist’s home or newsroom is raided, it won’t be an oversight or a mistake. It will be the new normal for press freedom in America.

Caitlin Vogus

A judge finally called a newsroom raid what it is

2 weeks 1 day ago

When a judge orders a journalist not to publish a story, everyone recognizes it as a prior restraint — the most serious First Amendment violation there is, according to the Supreme Court, and one that has never been allowed against the press. But when the government kicks down a reporter’s door and walks out with computers, or seizes a news photographer’s camera at a protest, that’s often seen as something different.

It’s not. In both cases, the reporter is left unable to publish news, which is the exact harm that the prohibition on prior restraints seeks to avoid. Magistrate Judge William Porter’s February order restricting how prosecutors could search materials seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson recognizes this reality. Porter treated the seizure of her devices, containing terabytes of data, source communications, and works in progress, as a prior restraint — a recognition long overdue, and one that courts have been notably reluctant to make explicit.

We’ve been critical of other aspects of Porter’s order. He should have required that Natanson’s materials be returned outright and should have sanctioned prosecutors for omitting the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 — a law that prohibits exactly this kind of raid in most circumstances — from their warrant application. He admitted the Trump administration has a track record of falsely claiming national security threats, but deferred to them anyway. But at least he framed the issue correctly before his anticlimactic conclusion.

There’s actually an argument that seizures are worse than orders not to publish. Traditional prior restraints are so nakedly unconstitutional that news outlets sometimes opt to just ignore them, dare the court to hold a journalist in contempt of court for reporting the news, and publish anyway. That happened in Colorado, where a reporter from BusinessDen defied an order to return court records the court itself had released. The judge backed down.

But you can’t choose to ignore a seizure and risk contempt. When the FBI has your hard drives, you don’t have the option of printing the story anyway.

Plus, a traditional prior restraint targets specific information that the government claims (almost always falsely) poses some kind of extraordinary threat, the most famous example being the Pentagon Papers. A seizure of a modern journalist’s devices captures everything from stories in progress to research notes to contacts, most of which have nothing to do with whatever law enforcement is investigating. The seizure of Natanson’s materials likely killed far more stories than any targeted court order ever could have, which also increases the potential chilling effect among other journalists’ worried about losing not just one scoop, but all of their hard work, by publishing materials that upset the government.

The seizure of Natanson’s materials likely killed far more stories than any targeted court order ever could have.

Florida journalist Tim Burke faced the same predicament. Agents raided his Tampa home in 2023 and walked out with essentially every piece of equipment in his newsroom. The seized data included reporting that had nothing to do with his purported crime of violating computer fraud laws by publishing newsworthy information (outtakes of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Ye, formerly Kanye West, where the recording artist went on antisemitic rants) that he found on an unencrypted website.

The seizure was, for all intents and purposes, an indefinite prior restraint on his First Amendment right to report and publish newsworthy information. The government prevented Burke from reporting for more than nine months before even indicting him. Then the indictment sought forfeiture of his computers, claiming that his reporting in progress was criminal “contraband,” an argument the government is now floating in Natanson’s case as well.

The raid of the Marion County Record is another example. Police in Kansas walked out with computers, phones, and reporting materials, forcing the newspaper to pivot in order to publish its next edition on time. It makes little difference to the impacted journalists whether the government says “you can’t publish this” or “you no longer have what you want to publish.”

Less dramatic infringements can have the same effect — journalists covering civil unrest, for example, might be working with a single phone or camera. Seizure of those devices stops them from publishing their coverage (and potentially exposes their sources) just like a newsroom raid. The latter are relatively rare, but the former happens all the time.

Porter is not the first to recognize this dynamic. The Supreme Court has said that seizures of materials protected by the First Amendment run “the risk of prior restraint” and can’t be justified by probable cause alone. As one federal appellate court put it, “The government need not ban a protected activity … if it can simply proceed upstream and dam the source.”

But the judge may be the first to put it so plainly in the newsgathering context. He deserves credit for understanding the constitutional implications of silencing Natanson and not shying away from expanding the legal concept of “prior restraints” to seizures of electronics that the courts that developed that jurisprudence decades ago could never have anticipated. Maybe next time, he’ll follow through with the right remedy — ordering the immediate return of all the seized materials and sanctioning the prosecutors who took them under false pretenses.

Seth Stern

Press must be transparent about wartime censorship

2 weeks 1 day ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

The U.S.-Israeli war in Iran, all parties to which have abysmal recent records on press freedom, is sure to bring an escalation in censorship and retaliation against journalists. That makes it a perfect time (as it has been for over a century) to reform the Espionage Act, one of the primary weapons the government uses to stifle whistleblowing and war reporting. Read on for more.

The public deserves to know when Iran war reporting is stifled

Journalists covering the U.S. and Israel’s new war on Iran should be telling their audiences not only what they know but what they were prevented from finding out, and by whom.

That doesn’t just mean an occasional editorial bemoaning threats to press freedom. Those are valuable, but on their own, they turn speech suppression into a side issue. With an unprecedented censorship infrastructure surrounding this war, it’s anything but that. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern wrote about why reporting should include acknowledgment and explanation of how censorship impacts what the public sees and reads in each story.

Florida should not get its own mini-CIA

If Florida enacts House Bill 945, it will create a national first — a CIA-style structure at the state level that blurs the traditional line between state law enforcement and intelligence work. And it likely wouldn’t remain a local experiment. Red states often borrow aggressively from one another’s policy playbooks, on everything from gerrymandering to anti-abortion laws to transporting immigrants to Democratic-led states.

Stern, along with FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper and Florida First Amendment Foundation Executive Director Bobby Block, wrote for The Guardian that state-level intelligence offices empowered to scrutinize residents based on ideology are sure to be used against journalists.

A judge finally called a newsroom raid what it is

When a judge orders a journalist not to publish a story, everyone recognizes it as a prior restraint — the most serious First Amendment violation there is, according to the Supreme Court, and one that has never been allowed against the press. But when the government kicks down a reporter’s door and walks out with computers, or seizes a news photographer’s equipment at a protest, that’s often seen as something different.

It’s not — in both cases, the reporter is left unable to publish news, which is the harm that the prohibition on prior restraints seeks to avoid. Magistrate Judge William Porter’s February order restricting how prosecutors could search materials seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson recognizes this reality by treating the seizure of her materials, containing terabytes of data, source communications, and works in progress, as a prior restraint. We’ve been critical of other aspects of Porter’s order but he at least deserves credit for that.

Assange case coming back to bite ‘conventional’ journalists

For years we warned that the Espionage Act prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, started by the first Trump administration and shamefully continued by the Biden administration, would lead to attacks on more conventional reporters, regardless of official claims that Assange wasn’t really a journalist so the press needn’t worry.

In the past two months, the federal government and its defenders have used the Assange case to normalize and defend everything from seizing Natanson’s devices in violation of federal law to accusing journalist Seth Harp of illegally “leaking” identities of government officials. FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm explained this troubling trend in a video (and we’ve got plenty of other great video content on YouTube).

Help our SecureDrop team make our lives online more secure

WEBCAT, a new software tool under development at FPF, has just entered alpha testing. The goal of the project is to allow web browsers to verify the origin of code before they run it. By guarding against hacked web servers, WEBCAT aims to make our lives online more secure.

We invite adventurous web users to try out our Firefox browser extension, and web application developers to experiment with our new decentralized web domain enrollment system.

What we’re reading Nashville reporter who has detailed ICE activity detained in South Nashville stop Nashville Banner

We don’t yet know if Estefany Rodríguez’s detention was in retaliation for her reporting, but we certainly wouldn’t be surprised. Immigration and Customs Enforcement abductions of immigrant journalists take the reporters best equipped to cover the agency’s activities off the beat.

Photographer indicted after Minnesota church protest coverage U.S. Press Freedom Tracker

Junn Bollmann is the latest journalist charged for covering the same church protest that prompted the Trump administration’s outrageous arrests of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort. The Justice Department will likely lose these cases, and the journalists should sue.

Chicago appeals court vacates judge’s use-of-force injunction on immigration agents Chicago Tribune

The 7th Circuit has apparently decided it’s in the business of correcting “injustices” no one asked it to correct. The one it chose to start with? An already dismissed order restraining violent immigration agents from assaulting journalists.

Prairieland ICE shooting trial jury gets closer look at ‘antifa’ materials defendants owned KERA News

“Zines are really like this little atomic unit of freedom of the press with simple pamphlets that you just pass around. It begs the question of whether the prosecution believes that we should have a First Amendment in the first place,” said Lydia Koza, wife of defendant Autumn Hill. Also, read our 2025 op-ed on how the federal case in Texas threatens press freedom.

Some of the best news stories start with a public records request Poynter

Nearly everything is fair game for a records request at public universities, “even the amount of money dining halls spend on ranch dressing,” write student journalists for Michigan State University’s The State News.

The New York Times takes the Pentagon to court Columbia Journalism Review

The Pentagon’s media policy is “unconstitutional, but ... what they say after the fact makes their arguments even worse,” Timm said. They “admitted that they don’t care if people break this as long as they agree with them.”

Use our action center to tell Congress to pass Rep. Tlaib’s bill to fix the arcane and dangerous Espionage Act so the government can no longer treat whistleblowers and journalists like enemy spies.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

The public deserves to know when Iran war reporting is stifled

2 weeks 3 days ago

Journalists covering the U.S. and Israel’s war on Iran should be telling their audiences not only what they know but what they were prevented from finding out, and by whom. That doesn’t just mean an occasional editorial bemoaning threats to press freedom. Those are valuable, but on their own, they turn speech suppression into a side issue. The reporting itself should include acknowledgment and explanation of how censorship impacts what the public sees and reads.

The censorship infrastructure surrounding this war is extraordinary. On the American side, self-proclaimed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has virtually eliminated press access to the military and limited press credentialing to journalists who pledge to remain official stenographers. As a result of his policy, the press corps covering the Pentagon is composed of Trump-aligned outlets like One America News, Turning Point USA’s Frontlines, and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s LindellTV streaming service.

It’s arguably not the worst outcome for serious reporters to get their time back so they can dig through public records instead of listening to Hegseth’s lies and weird pep talks. But if they try, they’re sure to run into problems caused by the Trump administration’s widespread gutting of public records and transparency mechanisms, elimination of government websites, and blatant noncompliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Some of the same outlets excluded from the Pentagon are likely to face harassment from Brendan Carr’s Federal Communications Commission and others within the administration eager to use their leverage over corporate transactions to deter criticism.

Trump has claimed that kitchen cabinets threaten national security during peacetime — imagine what he’ll say about investigative journalism while at war.

The administration’s war on leaks is sure to accelerate as whistleblowers seek to expose the embarrassing mistakes and awful human rights abuses that the war is almost certain to bring. After the raid of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home over her source’s alleged Espionage Act violations, further intrusions on newsgathering seem inevitable. Trump has reportedly been looking for an opportunity to take it one step further and prosecute a journalist under the same archaic law.

The congressional subpoena of journalist Seth Harp, for identifying a military official leading Trump’s attack on Venezuela, likely foreshadows what’s to come for journalists who publish news the administration seeks to conceal about the war.

The administration’s efforts to distort the concept of “doxxing” to criminalize reporting on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s abduction spree may prove to have been a practice run for tactics to silence war correspondents. President Donald Trump has claimed that kitchen cabinets threaten national security during peacetime — imagine what he’ll say about investigative journalism while at war.

Attacks that don’t silence critics directly are apt to lead to self-censorship. Sources won’t come forward at risk of federal investigation. Corporate news moguls will tone down their coverage to avoid government threats to their more lucrative holdings. Smaller outlets and independent journalists will hesitate to risk incurring life-altering legal fees.

Sure, some journalists and whistleblowers are courageous enough to risk everything to tell the truth, but we shouldn’t be dependent on heroism for uncensored reporting.

On the Israeli side, the censorship is often even more direct. Israel’s military censor, which reportedly banned publication of 1,635 articles and partially censored another 6,265 in 2024, will be back at it — likely emboldened by U.S. backsliding under Trump. Journalists who disobey the censor — which also prohibits them from reporting they’ve been silenced — risk arrest.

Stories that aren’t killed by the censor are deterred with the threat of being blown to bits. Israel has systematically targeted news outlets and individual journalists in Gaza, as well as Iran. There’s no reason to assume this war will be any different — an Iranian state media complex has reportedly already been bombed. Add to that the “accidental” killings of journalists resulting from unwillingness to take basic measures to protect civilians.

And then there’s Iran itself, which, to paraphrase Hegseth, didn’t start this war but is sure going to censor it. The remnants of the regime are likely to lash out to violently stifle all sorts of dissent, including journalism that doesn’t parrot their narratives.

Stories that aren’t killed by the censor are deterred with the threat of being blown to bits.

Iran — which ranked 176th out of 180 on Reporters Without Borders’ global Press Freedom Index last year — is intolerant of adversarial journalism during peacetime and will surely escalate censorship now, as we saw during the Israel-Iran war last year.

Since the start of the current war, Iran has already blacked out phone and internet access, as it did during its horrifically violent suppression of January’s uprisings. It will almost certainly continue to do so, thereby severely limiting the information that comes out of the war’s primary battleground, and leaving journalists and news consumers to gauge the credibility of competing government narratives.

None of this is unprecedented in isolation — the George W. Bush administration used highly restricted embed access in Iraq as a propaganda tool, subpoenaed reporters, and floated prosecuting them under the Espionage Act. The Obama administration pursued more Espionage Act cases against whistleblowers than all prior administrations combined. The Biden administration extracted a plea deal from Julian Assange over WikiLeaks’ exposure of Iraq war crimes. But all of that is going to be on steroids now, in terms of both scale and brazenness.

Journalists will find a way to report the news and investigate government abuses and lies, despite it all. Lawyers and activists will do what they can to help. But it’s unrealistic to expect reporters to overcome this multipronged attack entirely.

What they can and should do, even if it feels awkward, is let the public in on the obstacles they are dealing with and how the lack of reliable information during modern conflicts harms us all, allowing politicians to lie their way into wars that enrich their friends while killing schoolchildren.

If reporters are going to quote Pentagon spokespeople or news releases, the public deserves to know who the reporter was not allowed to interview and what documents they were not permitted to review. It’s vital context without which the reporting is arguably misleading. And reporters from the U.S. — which is somehow still the least censored of the three main parties to this war — may be the only ones who can provide it.

It might not fix the secrecy surrounding this war, but it could lead to greater demand for transparency and greater skepticism of official narratives in the run-up to the next “forever war.” Maybe it could even help avoid the next one altogether.

Seth Stern

Censorship is bad for business

3 weeks 1 day ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Government lawyers are lying to courts to justify attacks on reporters covering immigration. Meanwhile, immigrant journalists like Ya’akub Vijandre remain locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for exercising their rights. And corporate capitulators are looking to take over more news outlets to help the administration cover all of it up. Read on for more.

More news holdings for Paramount harms press freedom — and the bottom line

Netflix has reportedly declined to increase its bid for Warner Bros. Discovery after Warner deemed Paramount’s latest competing bid superior. That paves the way for Paramount, led by Donald Trump ally David Ellison, to take over Warner and its media holdings, including CNN and HBO.

We said in a statement that Paramount boss Ellison “will readily throw the First Amendment, CNN’s reporters, and HBO’s filmmakers under the bus if they stand in the way of expanding his corporate empire and fattening his pockets. But censorship is bad for business. ... Selling companies that depend on the First Amendment to a censorial White House puppet is not only morally wrong but harmful to their bottom line.”

Order restricting Natanson search didn’t go far enough

Judge William Porter imposed significant restrictions on the government’s ability to search materials seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson during the raid of her home last month. He also made clear his displeasure with prosecutors’ omission of any mention of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 — which prohibits searches of reporters’ materials in most circumstances — from their warrant application.

Porter was right to treat the seizure as a prior restraint and to limit the government from fishing through the irrelevant data it seized to snoop on reporters. He is also right to reprimand prosecutor Gordon Kromberg and his team for failing to disclose the Privacy Protection Act.

But the order didn’t go far enough. Porter should have required all of Natanson’s materials seized pursuant to the deceptive warrant application to be returned to her. And he should not have credited the administration’s claims that any of the seized materials posed a national security threat without strict proof, because the administration has earned zero deference from the judiciary on claims of national security threats.

We also updated and resubmitted our attorney disciplinary complaint against Kromberg — which the Virginia Bar previously punted to the courts — in light of Porter’s ruling.

Government lawyers: Don’t make up terrorist attacks

Speaking of attorney disciplinary complaints, our latest one is against Sean Skedzielewski, who defended the government in lawsuits to stop ICE abuses of protesters and journalists in Los Angeles and Chicago. In the Chicago case, he told the judge that “violent terrorist organizations” were attacking federal agents in “riots” and exposing their families to danger through “doxing.”

All of that is complete nonsense. It shouldn’t be a heavy lift to convince an attorney disciplinary office that it’s unethical for government lawyers to make up a terrorist attack on America’s third-largest city to justify the violent suppression of First Amendment rights. But considering the spinelessness of those offices these days, the complaint may prove to be a long shot.

Learn how to FOIA from the pros

FPF hosted a webinar this week to spotlight how journalists and transparency advocates use both local and federal public records requests to pry loose what the government would rather keep secret.

We spoke with Mukta Joshi, an investigative journalist for Mississippi Today and a fellow at The New York Times, whose reporting has uncovered abuse within the Mississippi jail system; Matt Scott, the executive director at the Atlanta Community Press Collective, who has used public records to report on the Atlanta Police Department’s “Cop City”; and Lauren Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, who regularly advocates for improved transparency laws. FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus moderated the panel.

Find us on YouTube and Instagram

In addition to the webinars we regularly host, we’ve also significantly increased our short-form video output in 2026, including weekly wrap-ups of press freedom news from our Executive Director Trevor Timm, and other topical clips. Follow us on Instagram for the latest videos.

Are you subscribed to our other newsletters? Sign up for news on excessive government secrecy, and for digital security tips and advice at the link below.

Subscribe here What we're reading Nonprofit coalition asks courts to prevent coercive federal investigation tactics The Intercept

FPF, The Intercept’s Press Freedom Defense Fund, and a coalition of nonprofit organizations filed an amicus brief urging a federal appellate court to reject retaliatory investigations like the Federal Trade Commission’s probe of Media Matters for America.

Privacy under pressure 404 Media

FPF’s Chief Security Programs Officer Harlo Holmes joined 404 Media’s podcast to talk about digital safety, privacy rights, and how they’re constantly evolving.

NY nonprofit news deserves fair funding in state budget Reinvent Albany

Nonprofit news outlets in New York deserve the same support as their commercial counterparts. FPF and our partner organizations are calling on Gov. Kathy Hochul to find equal funding for nonprofit news in the state budget.

Record 129 press members killed in 2025; Israel responsible for 2/3 of deaths Committee to Protect Journalists

CPJ’s report also shows that drone killings of journalists spiked from two in 2023 to 39 in 2025 — with Israel responsible for 28 of the 39.

Journalists jailed by ICE are revealing the horrors of incarceration Truthout

“Professional journalists and writers, who normally are severely restricted from entering into the U.S.’s carceral facilities, are now themselves experiencing the harsh realities that nearly 2.1 million incarcerated people are subjected to daily,” writes FPF contributor Jeremy Busby.

Trump administration moves to allow intelligence agencies easier access to law enforcement files ProPublica

The same president who frequently accuses the CIA of conducting witch hunts is making it easier for the agency to spy on Americans.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

More news holdings for Paramount harms press and bottom line

3 weeks 2 days ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, Feb. 26, 2026 — Netflix has reportedly declined to increase its bid for Warner Bros. Discovery after Warner deemed Paramount’s latest competing bid superior. That paves the way for Paramount, led by Donald Trump ally David Ellison, to take over Warner and its media holdings, including CNN and HBO.

The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern:

“Ellison has already shown his cards. When the Trump administration unconstitutionally demanded editorial concessions from Ellison’s Skydance in exchange for government approval of its takeover of Paramount and CBS News, he obliged, even appointing a Trump loyalist as a so-called ’bias ombudsman.’ CBS has since repeatedly censored journalists or altered its coverage to please Trump and his allies. There is no reason to believe that this proven capitulator will behave any differently this time around — in fact, he’s already reportedly promised Trump ’sweeping changes’ at CNN, including firing people Trump dislikes.

“Ellison will readily throw the First Amendment, CNN’s reporters, and HBO’s filmmakers under the bus if they stand in the way of expanding his corporate empire and fattening his pockets. But censorship is bad for business. Warner executives and shareholders should recognize that selling companies that depend on the First Amendment to a censorial White House puppet is not only morally wrong but harmful to their bottom line. And lawmakers, state attorneys general, and anyone else in a position to intervene should make clear that they will not stand by as the Trump administration abuses its power to unconstitutionally extract content-based concessions from news companies.”

Please contact us if you’d like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

DOJ lawyer falsely cited terrorism to justify press freedom violations

3 weeks 2 days ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Chicago, Feb. 26, 2026 — Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) filed an attorney disciplinary complaint today against Department of Justice lawyer Sean Skedzielewski. The complaint focuses on Skedzielewski’s remarks to a federal judge in Chicago that immigration agents’ violations of protesters and journalists’ rights were justified by “a riot with violent terrorist organizations attempting to dox ICE and their famil[ies].” But no such terrorist riot ever occurred.

The following can be attributed to Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at FPF:

“It does not take a scholar of legal ethics to conclude that government lawyers should not be allowed to make up a violent and organized terrorist invasion of a major American city. That we have a presidential administration that lies constantly to justify its lack of transparency and crackdowns on First Amendment freedoms does not license government attorneys to repeat the same nonsense in courts of law. The Attorney Grievance Committee should use this opportunity to send a clear message that government lawyers are expected to uphold the Constitution, not undermine it with fabricated hysteria.”

The complaint, which was filed with the Attorney Grievance Committee in New York, where Skedzielewski is licensed to practice law, is available here.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Order restricting Natanson search didn’t go far enough

3 weeks 4 days ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

A federal judge in Virginia today imposed significant restrictions on the government’s ability to search materials seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson during the raid of her home last month. Magistrate Judge William Porter also made clear his displeasure with prosecutors’ omission of any mention of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 — which prohibits searches of reporters’ materials in most circumstances — from their warrant application.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) previously filed a complaint with the Virginia State Bar against prosecutor Gordon Kromberg over the omission of the PPA, but the bar responded that it was up to the judge to determine whether the warrant application was misleading.

The following can be attributed to FPF Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern:

“The government’s alarming raid of Natanson’s home and seizure of terabytes of data stopped countless important stories from being told, both by Natanson herself and the news outlets that likely hesitated to publish important leaks after seeing what happened to her.

“Judge Porter was right to treat the seizure as a prior restraint and to limit the government from fishing through the irrelevant data it seized to snoop on reporters. He is also right to reprimand prosecutor Gordon Kromberg and his team for failing to disclose the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 — a law that severely limits the kinds of raids that Natanson endured — in their search warrant application. He should go a step further and sanction prosecutors for that willful omission, and Virginia’s State Bar should reopen and investigate Freedom of the Press Foundation’s ethics complaint against Kromberg.

“That said, today’s order didn’t go far enough. Judge Porter should have required all of Natanson’s materials seized pursuant to the deceptive warrant application to be returned to her. And he should not have credited the administration’s claims that any of the seized materials posed a national security threat without strict proof — as Judge Porter acknowledged, this administration, even more so than others, has a long track record of falsely claiming national security threats to protect itself from embarrassment and further its political agenda. It has earned zero deference from the judiciary on claims of national security threats, particularly when press freedom is at stake.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Leakers helped exonerate Rümeysa Öztürk

1 month ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

We don’t yet know whether the government will appeal the dismissal of its deportation case against Rümeysa Öztürk for co-writing an op-ed it didn’t like. Regardless, others — like Ya’akub Vijandre — remain locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for exercising their press freedom rights. Read on for more on the week in press freedom.

Leakers helped exonerate Rümeysa Öztürk

Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk’s deportation case was finally thrown out this month, although the government can still seek review of the dismissal. The ruling came after a memo leaked to the press revealed that the administration knew before arresting her that its allegations of terrorism and antisemitism were false. Öztürk’s supporters were right all along — the case was based entirely on her co-authorship of a relatively tame pro-Palestinian op-ed.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern wrote for The Intercept about how the case is yet another example of leaks — which the government claims pose a dire risk to national security — instead serving the public good and exposing misconduct. When the government lies to the people and ignores the Freedom of Information Act, it’s inevitable that people of conscience will bring important documents like the Öztürk memo to the press.

How free news helped Chicago get through Operation Midway Blitz

When immigration authorities invaded Chicago last year, they often targeted lower-income neighborhoods, meaning the people who most needed news about their activities were unlikely to be able to afford a newspaper subscription.

Fortunately, Chicago is full of news outlets that don’t paywall their excellent reporting (as are Los Angeles and Minneapolis, Minnesota, which experienced similar assaults in recent months). But the next city might not be so lucky. Stern and FPF founding board member, actor, and activist John Cusack joined “In the Loop with Sasha-Ann Simons” on Chicago’s NPR affiliate, WBEZ, to discuss that and other press freedom issues.

Uber for authoritarians

Speaking of leakers bringing us important news, a manual for ICE’s immigrant-targeting computer system, Palantir ELITE, was leaked on Jan. 30 via 404 Media.

John Skiles Skinner, an engineering manager at FPF, took a break from improving SecureDrop (more on that later) to evaluate the manual and the dark road it shows we’re on. He writes that “the software allows the administration to order up a goon squad wherever they want, at the touch of a button. Like Uber for authoritarians. Let’s call it repression as a service.”

Five security lessons from the FBI’s Washington Post raid

The January FBI raid of the home of Washington Post federal government reporter Hannah Natanson, in connection with a leak probe involving a government contractor, was a dangerous escalation against press freedom and likely runs afoul of the Privacy Protection Act. It shouldn’t have happened at all, but it might preview what’s to come.

FPF Deputy Director of Digital Security Dr. Martin Shelton recently examined a court document that shines light on some specifics of the case, and wrote about five lessons journalists can learn.

SecureDrop keeps getting better

FPF is proud to announce the latest version of SecureDrop — open source software whistleblowers use to communicate anonymously with journalists.

The release lays the groundwork for the upcoming SecureDrop App and other exciting efforts to make SecureDrop faster, cheaper, and more secure for newsrooms worldwide. Stay tuned.

What we're reading ‘We returned from hell’: Palestinian journalists recount torture in Israeli prisons Committee to Protect Journalists

Fifty-eight Palestinian journalists “reported being subjected to what they described as torture, abuse, or other forms of violence” in Israeli detention facilities since October 2023.

Prison-style free speech censorship is coming for the rest of us The Intercept

Incarcerated journalist and FPF columnist Jeremy Busby wrote about how the upcoming trial of a Texas activist for possessing anarchist zines reminds him of the censorship and retaliation that has been prevalent inside prisons for decades.

Photojournalists documenting Trump’s deportation forces play critical role, but face increasing state violence Prism

A veteran civil rights attorney warns that “frontline journalists should read the specifics of any emergency order and ask: How do I protect myself, and how do I push back against laws that I feel are unjust, immoral, unconscionable, or that get in the way of freedom of the press?”

Homeland security wants social media sites to expose anti-ICE accounts The New York Times

It should be obvious that criticizing ICE — or any government agency — on social media is protected by the First Amendment. Tech companies must not comply with sweeping government demands that seek to unmask users simply for expressing their opinions online.

Officials investigating how Lookout obtained report on Oregon State Hospital Lookout Eugene-Springfield

“The hunting of whistleblowers is wrong because it is failing to address the actual problem, which is the reason they blow the whistle in the first place,” FPF Deputy Director of Advocacy Adam Rose said.

Wisconsin Assembly passes anti-SLAPP legislation Wisconsin Examiner

Good news: The Wisconsin Assembly advanced its bill protecting people from strategic lawsuits against public participation to the Senate. Legislatures in red, blue, and purple states understand there’s nothing partisan about protecting journalists, activists, and everyone else from anti-speech lawfare.

Upcoming events

Join us at the events below; click the flyers for more info, including on how to register.

Join us for a timely digital security training on how to protect your devices, sources and reporting material from adversaries, particularly in the face of physical interception, sponsored by the NewsGuild-CWA.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Attorney regulators must push back on lawless prosecutors

1 month 1 week ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

The deportation case against Rümeysa Öztürk for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like was finally dismissed this week, although the administration can still challenge the ruling. But others, like Ya’akub Vijandre, remain locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for exercising their press freedom rights. Read on for more on the week in press freedom.

Attorney regulators must push back on lawless prosecutors

Last Friday, we filed an attorney disciplinary complaint against Gordon Kromberg, the federal prosecutor who reviewed and signed the search warrant application targeting Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson. The complaint explained that Kromberg violated his duty to disclose adverse authority when his application neglected to mention a federal law that should have prohibited the raid of Natanson’s home. As we explained in a statement, his omission “now threatens to expose Natanson’s sources and cripple her ability to report, while also sending a warning shot to journalists and whistleblowers nationwide.”

Days later, the Virginia State Bar punted on the complaint, contending that it is up to the judge to whom Kromberg submitted the application to decide if the attorney misrepresented the law. That makes no sense — if attorney honesty is solely for judges to decide, then why do the ethics rules (which are enforced by regulators, not judges) include a duty of candor? As we told The New York Times: “This is the latest example of attorney disciplinary offices finding any excuse to not confront the rampant misconduct by prosecutors and other lawyers inside the Trump administration. Disciplinary offices need to rise to the moment and stop protecting the people they’re supposed to regulate.”

Öztürk deportation case among America’s most blatant press freedom violations

We’re thrilled that Öztürk’s removal case is (hopefully) over but we remain shocked and disgusted that it ever happened. We said in a statement that the case is “arguably the most blatant press freedom violation of this century, and maybe the last century as well. The administration did not even bother to present a pretext for its actions — it arrested her, jailed her in horrific conditions, and sought to expel her solely because she expressed views shared by millions of Americans about one of the most important issues of our time.”

The administration goes after immigrants like Öztürk (who has a student visa) because they’re the easiest targets, not because they have any greater respect for the constitutional rights of citizens. They’d throw out all of us who dissent from their agenda or expose their lies if they could, regardless of citizenship status.

Could the next archivist be even worse?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was never qualified to serve as acting archivist of the United States, even if it were his only job. In normal times, we’d cheer the end of his year-long stint at the National Archives and Records Administration. But in normal times that stint would’ve never happened. And there is a real concern that his successor might not be any better.

Rubio has reportedly picked Jim Byron, who has been functioning as the agency’s day-to-day head, to take over from him. Byron’s track record is troubling, to say the least. Our Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, Lauren Harper, has more in her secrecy newsletter, The Classifieds.

Digital security for Valentine’s Day

Like love itself, digital security is all about trust, confidentiality, and compatibility, so our digital security team worked with our friends at Calyx Institute on this set of valentines.

Please feel free to choose your favorites, download them, print them if you like, and send them along to anyone you care for, along with our best regards.

What we're reading Paramount expands offer for Warner Bros amid hostile takeover bid Al Jazeera

“WBD shareholders should push back against any transaction that would result in CNN being controlled by people who have already shown willingness to sell out journalism and journalists to benefit their other interests,” Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern said.

Trump’s campaign against ‘left-wing’ media finds a new target: Apple News The Washington Post

To summarize Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson’s ridiculous letter: “We’re not the speech police, but we reserve the right to make up nonexistent misrepresentations as a pretext to police speech.”

Landmark settlement announced in lawsuit challenging unlawful questioning of journalists at the border American Civil Liberties Union

An important win for press freedom from the ACLU: A landmark settlement for photojournalists who had their First Amendment rights violated at the U.S.-Mexico border by ICE and Customs and Border Patrol.

LAPD replaces ‘less-lethal’ gun ‘known to maim people’ with another ‘less-lethal’ gun capable of doing the exact same thing LA Taco

“Whatever euphemistic term people use for these weapons, all of them are known to maim people for life,” said FPF’s deputy director of advocacy, Adam Rose. “They’re only appropriate when the only alternative is lethal force.”

ICE is expanding across the US at breakneck speed. Here’s where it’s going next Wired

In the midst of its lies about the dangers of filming law enforcement operations, ICE now claims that revealing its new office locations is a “national security” concern. It’s not.

RSVP: https://freedom.press/workin-FOIA

Freedom of the Press Foundation

FPF statement on dismissal of Rümeysa Öztürk’s deportation case

1 month 1 week ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, Feb. 10, 2026 — Deportation proceedings against Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk have reportedly been terminated. Öztürk’s arrest in March 2025 and her subsequent 45-day imprisonment and removal proceedings arose from her co-authorship of a pro-Palestinian op-ed in a student newspaper.

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

“We’re thrilled that the effort to deport Rümeysa Öztürk is over, but remain alarmed and disgusted that it ever happened. Öztürk’s case is arguably the most blatant press freedom violation of this century, and maybe the last century as well. The administration did not even bother to present a pretext for its actions — it arrested her, jailed her in horrific conditions, and sought to expel her solely because she expressed views shared by millions of Americans about one of the most important issues of our time. That the government attempted to characterize mere opposition to Israel’s war as ‘terrorism’ is as chilling as any of the administration’s censorial antics. They went after noncitizens first, not because they have any greater appreciation of the First Amendment rights of citizens, but because they’re the low-hanging fruit. They’d throw out all of us who dissent if they could.”

Please contact us if you’d like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

FPF complaint targets prosecutor over Washington Post reporter raid

1 month 1 week ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Washington, D.C., Feb. 9, 2026 — On Friday, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) filed an attorney disciplinary complaint against Gordon Kromberg, the federal prosecutor who reviewed and signed the search warrant application targeting Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson.

The complaint notes that Kromberg appears to have violated an ethical rule that requires lawyers to reveal relevant legal authority to the court, even if it undermines their arguments. Recently unsealed court records disclose what many suspected: The government failed to alert the court that authorized the warrant to the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a federal law that, in most cases, forbids the use of search warrants for journalistic work product and documentary materials.

The following statement can be attributed to Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for FPF:

“Kromberg and the government omitted a federal law that should have prohibited the raid of Hannah Natanson’s home when applying for a search warrant. That choice now threatens to expose Natanson’s sources and cripple her ability to report, while also sending a warning shot to journalists and whistleblowers nationwide.

“Disciplinary bodies cannot look the other way and ignore misconduct that threatens the First Amendment, particularly from an administration with a long history of misleading judges and everyone else. When prosecutors abuse their power to facilitate efforts to silence reporting and intimidate news sources, disciplinary authorities must hold them accountable and impose real consequences.”

Read the complaint here.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Inside the reporting on immigration enforcement

1 month 2 weeks ago

Communities across the U.S. are facing escalating threats from immigration enforcement operations, with federal agents moving from city to city, detaining children and community members, tear-gassing neighborhoods, attacking protesters, and even murdering people observing and filming them.

Journalists aren’t immune from the dangers. Reporters are facing harassment, arrest, and physical attacks simply for doing their jobs, all while battling pervasive government secrecy.

In a recent discussion hosted by Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), four journalists reporting from the front lines in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Portland, Oregon, shared hard-earned lessons on staying safe, verifying information, building trust with sources, and keeping the public informed.

Journalist Memo Torres from L.A. Taco described how he and his colleagues responded to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that began in Los Angeles in June 2025 by starting the Daily Memo, a daily video recap of immigration enforcement actions often created from information, records, and pictures sent in by community members and verified by the outlet’s reporters.

Those community relationships, Torres explained, are essential. Relationships that Torres has built with sources, especially in groups organized to respond to ICE raids, have been key to verifying the videos and tips he receives, he said. “Find those people in your community, find the rapid response groups, the leaders, and try to build relationships with them,” Torres recommended. “It’s so important to be tapped into the ground.”

Echoing that point, journalist Francia García Hernández, who reports for the hyperlocal news outlet Block Club Chicago, agreed with the need to connect with sources in impacted communities, and encouraged journalists to also report on the ways they’re resisting government overreach. “I think one of the biggest misconceptions about immigration is that it’s just stories about enforcement and how families or communities are torn apart.” García Hernández said, “But there’s a lot of resistance. There’s a history of organizing that also needs to be documented and told.”

When the conversation turned to protest coverage, independent reporter Kevin Foster, who is based in Portland, Oregon, emphasized that situational awareness and proper safety equipment are key. Foster recounted incidents of officers tear-gassing large crowds at protests, including journalists, and of journalists being “kettled and arrested and batoned.” Other times, he noted, protests can be peaceful. “It really is quite dynamic,” Foster said, adding, “I think you just have to be prepared to handle that.”

Independent journalist and documentary filmmaker Michael Nigro encouraged journalists to show an “unadulterated reality” that he said is necessary for democratic accountability, and to not accept measures from the government that block transparency. Nigro recounted the making of his film “ICED Out of America,” which documented masked federal officers arresting and disappearing immigrants attending mandatory asylum court hearings held in a federal building in New York City. “Don’t let these masked agents become the new normal,” Nigro cautioned. “Don’t become complacent in seeing that.”

Watch the whole conversation here.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Brought to you by leaks

1 month 2 weeks ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Attacks on well-known journalists like Don Lemon are in the headlines, but noncitizens exercising First Amendment rights remain the most vulnerable. Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 318 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 the state of press freedom.

What we know because of leaks

The Department of Homeland Security secretary calls leakers a threat to national security and wants to prosecute them. Federal agents raided Washington Post journalist Hannah Natanson’s home and seized terabytes of data, purportedly to aid their prosecution of leaks.

But much of what the public knows about government agencies like DHS, which includes ICE and Customs and Border Protection, is thanks to whistleblowers and leakers who have exposed the government’s increasingly unlawful conduct as it aggressively enforces immigration law across the country.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus wrote about a few recent examples.

Lemon case is an opportunity to mobilize

The public’s outrage about attacks on the First Amendment like Don Lemon’s arrest and, before that, the censorship of Jimmy Kimmel isn’t because everyone protesting is a member of their fan clubs. It’s because people genuinely care about free speech, but with everything else going on, sometimes it takes a celebrity name to get their attention.

That’s why it’s important to keep the outrageous arrests of Lemon and independent journalist Georgia Fort in the news and not let the moment pass. We’re doing our part. Our executive director, Trevor Timm, spoke at the National Association of Black Journalists’ town hall about the arrests. Our chief of advocacy, Seth Stern, wrote for The Guardian and told everyone from CNN to MeidasTouch to legal podcasts and radio shows about how the charges are both legally frivolous and an obviously retaliatory political stunt to intimidate journalists.

A journalist’s fight to fix local transparency law

Last summer, Shirley L. Smith, an independent investigative journalist from the U.S. Virgin Islands, reached out about her efforts to get lawmakers there to modernize the territory’s public records laws.

Our response was something like, “Where have you been all our lives?” We’ve spent years imploring journalists to advocate for their own legal rights. No matter what one thinks about the place of “objectivity” in contemporary journalism, there’s no need for reporters to let it get in the way of advocating for their own ability to do their jobs.

We spoke to Smith about her campaign for transparency.

Transcript exposes lies to justify ICE secrecy

Days before the federal government falsely claimed cellphone-brandishing nurse Alex Pretti was a terrorist plotting a “massacre,” a jury in Chicago acquitted Juan Espinoza Martinez on bogus charges of a murder-for-hire plot against then-Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino.

Stern wrote for The Intercept about a recently unsealed court transcript that shows the government used that case as a pretext to convince a judge to obscure an ICE agent’s face during a public court proceeding when his name, face, employment, and location were publicly listed on his LinkedIn page.

Tulsi Gabbard’s whistleblower hypocrisy

Last May, a classified whistleblower complaint alleged misconduct by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and another unnamed federal agency.

The whistleblower should be allowed to share their complaint with Congress. But that’s not what happened. Our Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, Lauren Harper, has more on how Gabbard, a one-time advocate for whistleblowers, is dodging transparency.

What we're reading U.S. failed to alert judge to press law in application to search reporter’s home The New York Times

If the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 is going to stop these abuses, Congress must amend it to require that evidence gathered by breaking it is immediately thrown out.

FBI couldn’t get into WaPo reporter’s iPhone because it had lockdown mode enabled 404 Media

If you’re an iPhone user who is at elevated risk, enable Lockdown Mode. If you are an Android user, enable Advanced Protection. Read more tips in FPF’s 2026 journalist’s digisec checklist.

FBI spied on Washington Post reporter prior to raiding their home The Dissenter

The threat to press freedom from this case goes beyond seizing devices. The government shouldn’t be physically surveilling journalists.

How to film ICE Wired

The best defense against ICE seizing your camera “is other people recording that action and then being able to use that footage as evidence in court, when you sue them,” said FPF’s Timm.

ICE knocks on ad tech’s data door to see what it knows about you The Register

ICE wants to buy data from online ads to spy on people. Time to pass the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act.

FAA’s mobile no-drone zones create First Amendment concerns Quill

The Federal Aviation Administration’s new no-drone zones are “mind-boggling,” FPF’s Deputy Director of Advocacy Adam Rose said.

Too many FOIA requests, too little transparency Columbia Journalism Review

“The big, systematic problems in FOIA predate the Trump administration,” FPF’s Lauren Harper said. “I think it’s fair to say that the Trump administration is making it a hell of a lot worse.”

Lenexa police investigated author of column criticizing the department. He's ‘pissed off’ KCUR

Writing op-eds is not a crime. Someone should tell police in Lenexa, Kansas, and suggest they read the First Amendment.

When enforcement hits home: Tips from local journalists covering immigration

We spoke to four journalists covering immigration enforcement across the country. Watch our conversation to learn more about reporting on protests and raids, cultivating sources, and reaching the public. Watch the discussion here:

RSVP: cpj.org/usjanpaneldata

Freedom of the Press Foundation

A journalist’s campaign to fix public records law in the U.S. Virgin Islands

1 month 2 weeks ago

Last summer, Shirley L. Smith, an independent investigative journalist from the U.S. Virgin Islands, reached out about her efforts to get lawmakers there to modernize the territory’s public records laws. Having reported from jurisdictions with better (although far from perfect) transparency systems in place, she was sick of getting the runaround, and realized that the archaic and toothless laws on the books made evasion of records requests possible.

Our response was something like, “Where have you been all our lives?” We’ve spent years imploring journalists to advocate for their own legal rights — whether by fighting for transparency, pushing for laws to protect journalist-source confidentiality, or speaking out against abuses of federal and local laws to target newsgathering. No matter what one thinks about the place of “objectivity” in contemporary journalism, it’s absurd to let it get in the way of standing up for reporters’ own rights.

Smith — who has previously worked for outlets including the now-defunct Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, The Telegraph in New Hampshire, and The Virgin Islands Daily News — told us she focuses on “long-form enterprise and investigative reporting on social justice issues and institutional inequities.” Her current work looks at “the impact of longstanding and often overlooked environmental hazards in the U.S. Virgin Islands and other issues that affect the welfare of residents.”

We spoke to Smith about her experiences reporting in the territory and why she decided to pursue reforms to its public records laws.

What obstacles are you encountering due to the local public records laws?

Between October 2022 and July 2025, I submitted public records requests to multiple government agencies in the U.S. Virgin Islands for records related to serious health, environmental, and safety issues that pose a risk to the community. Officials have ignored most of my requests. Those that did respond provided incomplete information after lengthy delays, or flimsy excuses — without legal justification — for why they could not release documents.

One of the most outrageous responses I received was from the police department. They said I have to provide proof of “Virgin Islands citizenship” to access public records, and they refused to send me copies of any records. Instead, they insisted I come into the police station to examine records.

A huge part of the problem is that the Public Records Act is outdated and weak. It does not require agencies to respond to public records requests within a specific time frame, which allows for lengthy delays with impunity; the penalty for violating the law is only $100; and the only recourse one has if an agency violates the law is to file a lawsuit, which will cost more than the $100 penalty. Also, the law was enacted in 1921, before the advent of the internet and other technological advances that are commonly used to conduct business and law enforcement efforts, so the law needs to be updated to include electronic records.

You’ve reported from all over the country. What is uniquely challenging about reporting on the USVI?

The USVI is a small territory, consisting of three main islands — St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John — with a total population of approximately 87,000, according to the most recent census. Although there are three branches of government — executive, legislative and judicial — the territory has a somewhat centralized government that is difficult to penetrate, because the governor wields most of the power.

“I only had two choices. I could capitulate or petition the USVI Legislature to revamp the territory’s archaic and ineffective public records law.”

Shirley Smith

The governor, who manages the affairs of the territory with some federal oversight, appoints the head of almost all government agencies, the members of agency boards, the attorney general, and the local judges. All appointments must be approved by the USVI Legislature, but these officials still serve at the pleasure of the governor.

Historically, the Democratic Party has been the predominant party in the territory, so most public officials, including the governor, are part of the Democratic machine, and most residents work for the government or are affiliated with someone who works for the government. Therefore, a lot of residents are intertwined with the government. As a result, many residents and public officials are either reluctant or fearful to speak to the media for fear of retribution from the administration. Since tourism is a major driver of the economy, some officials also try to downplay certain issues that may reflect poorly on the territory.

Additionally, the territory only has a handful of news outlets, and they do not have the resources to support in-depth investigative reporting, and the national media are usually not interested in issues in the USVI unless there is a major crisis. Hence, many issues are not covered or are underreported.

While the federal government monitors some activities in the territory, the Trump administration has rolled back certain environmental regulations and programs that were intended to protect residents’ health and safety. They have also made it difficult for the media, particularly independent journalists, to access certain federal records and data. This means that USVI residents cannot count on the kind of oversight they had in the past from the federal government to protect them. This is also extremely disturbing because usually, if journalists cannot obtain records from a local government, they can request the records from the relevant federal agency and vice versa. But now, it is difficult to get records related to the USVI from the local and federal government.

The confluence of all these factors impedes the media’s ability to hold public officials accountable, root out corruption, combat misinformation, and provide the public with accurate, untainted information. This can have devastating consequences in an emergency or crisis.

Why should journalists and news consumers in the mainland United States be concerned about public records laws in the USVI when there are so many attacks on press freedom and transparency coming from the federal level?

People born in the U.S. Virgin Islands and other U.S. territories, like our neighbors in Puerto Rico, are U.S. citizens. Yet, we are often treated as second-class citizens by the federal government. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, journalists have the right to monitor the activities of the government on behalf of the public, and that includes the right to examine and get copies of public records. Recent events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and military actions in the Caribbean, have magnified the need for access to public records at every level of government, including U.S. territories, because what happens in the Caribbean can have a ripple effect throughout the country. Also, many national stories emerge from local incidents.

Another case in point is the Jeffrey Epstein case. The private islands formerly owned by Epstein, where he and other powerful men allegedly sexually abused underage girls and women, are located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands also receives a lot of federal funds, and American taxpayers have a right to know how this money is spent.

Journalists are often reluctant to go on offense in advocating for their rights to gather news. They might take the government to court over a denial of a specific records request, but they’re less inclined to try to change the law more broadly. Talk about why you chose to go down this path.

As an independent journalist, I do not have the resources to file a lawsuit, and I could not find an attorney or a media advocacy organization to assist me with obtaining the records I requested. So, I wrote an op-ed about the government’s lack of transparency and my personal experience, but I realized that writing an article was not enough to ensure lasting change and accountability. Therefore, I only had two choices. I could capitulate or petition the USVI Legislature to revamp the territory’s archaic and ineffective public records law.

As a journalist, I had some trepidation about petitioning the legislature because I did not want to be viewed as a biased advocate or a lobbyist. But extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary actions. And, I don’t think journalists should shy away from the term “advocate” anymore. Journalists should be advocates for the truth, justice, and accountability for the public good. This initiative is about preserving journalists’ constitutional rights to seek the truth and monitor the government, so we can hold those in power accountable and provide unbiased, accurate news coverage to the public, so they can make informed decisions.

“What happens in the Caribbean can have a ripple effect throughout the country...Many national stories emerge from local incidents.”

Shirley Smith

Journalists cannot afford to wait around for others to fight for us when there are blatant attempts by the government to silence and discredit us, control the news narrative with distorted facts, and when people’s health and safety and our own lives and livelihoods are increasingly at risk because every time those in power succeed in stifling the media — whether it be on the local, national or international level — it emboldens others to follow suit. This will eventually lead to a government-controlled media and the further dismantling of the fundamental principles of democracy that we are seeing play out across the nation.

It has been an exhausting battle, but I am no longer in this fight alone. The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and the VI Source, a local news outlet, have partnered with me in this initiative. Thanks to FPF’s efforts, I have also garnered the support of 11 other national advocacy organizations, including the Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications. They submitted a joint letter of support for this initiative to the VI Legislature.

You’re doing this as an independent journalist without a big legal budget. Do you think it’s fair that someone in your position needs to take the lead on this or should bigger outlets, whether in the USVI or elsewhere, be stepping up?

It is definitely not fair, but necessary. Segments of the local media have successfully sued the government in the past, but they either do not have the resources to do so now or are unwilling to sue for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the plight of freelancers is often disregarded or overlooked in the journalism industry. Over the past two years, I reached out to several notable national media advocacy organizations, but I could not find anyone to assist me with obtaining public records.

The lack of access and stonewalling tactics by public officials, including the governor’s communications team, which removed me from their media list shortly after I asked the governor a question about a water crisis at a news conference, have hampered my ability to gather information that is critical to my investigation and report the news. But, as I indicated, this initiative to revamp the territory’s public records statute and strengthen its other sunshine laws is bigger than me. People have the right to know what is going on in their government — especially when it comes to their health, welfare and safety — not just what government officials want them to know to promote their agenda. The ubiquitous lack of access to public records and information is also disconcerting, given the level of corruption at the highest levels of the USVI government.

If I am successful in getting the Legislature to make substantive changes to the sunshine laws, everyone in the Virgin Islands stands to benefit, including the Legislature. Several senators and their staff have admitted that they have also had difficulty obtaining certain records from the executive branch.

Does being a native of the USVI allow you to get things done in ways that a news outlet or advocacy organization from elsewhere wouldn’t be able on its own? Do you think the same principle — that locally led campaigns are more likely to get off the ground — would hold true elsewhere in the country?

Although some people are more likely to talk to me when they realize I am a native of the USVI, being a Virgin Islander has not made it easier for me to penetrate the political system and obtain public records and information. I, like most credible journalists, never want to distract from a story by making it about me. I don’t do this work for my own aggrandizement. However, there are times when you are the subject of the story or your life intersects with a story, and sharing your challenges adds value to a story and may encourage others to come forward. At the end of the day, that is why I became a journalist — to make a difference in society. But speaking up generally comes with a cost, so it is not an easy decision.

I think journalists on the mainland may have an easier time petitioning their government to reform public records laws because it would be easier for them to find community leaders and groups to partner with that are not intertwined with the government. However, independent journalists will face the same challenges that I have unless more media advocacy organizations step up to support them, regardless of whether they work for a big news outlet or not.

Update: This article was revised to replace the main image and modify the caption to add further context.

Seth Stern