Freedom of the Press

U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, who signed the now-withdrawn subpoenas for several New York Times reporters, testified in front of Congress last week as Donald Trump’s nominee for the director of national intelligence.

Under questioning from Sen. Michael Bennet, Clayton said that he followed the Trump administration’s media guidelines before signing the Times subpoenas. These guidelines include the following: “The government should have made all reasonable attempts to obtain the information, communications records, or business records from alternative sources.”

Clayton proactively called out this “all reasonable attempts” plank in his testimony:

“I’m confident that the procedures we have in place to protect the First Amendment and protect the freedom of the press … were followed. They depend on the facts and circumstances, how much time you have.

“Those matters include … ‘Are there other available sources for the information we seek?’ And have we sought that.”

He later repeated, “We followed the protocols” and “I want to assure this committee that … that concept of ‘least intrusive possible’ is front of mind for me.”

As we pointed out at the time, this was likely impossible. Given the Times’ story came out on a Wednesday and the subpoenas were issued on a Friday (after an hourslong White House meeting discussing the case with FBI Director Kash Patel), there was almost no way “all reasonable attempts” were made before the subpoenas were issued. These investigations usually take months.

It sure seemed like false testimony to us.

But on Friday, the Department of Justice itself seems to have confirmed that Clayton lied to Congress when he indicated they had pursued “all reasonable attempts” before issuing the subpoenas to the reporters.

In a court hearing in the Times subpoena case, a federal judge castigated government lawyers for an hour for making a multitude of errors when issuing the subpoenas, misleading the court, and not following the law, including the legal test in NY Times v. Gonzales that determines reporter’s privilege in the Second Circuit.

The judge specifically and repeatedly brought up the “all reasonable attempts” language, and how it was clear the government did not follow it:

Judge: I’m just asking you, am I wrong that the regulations and cases like Gonzales say that subpoenas issued to reporters and for the reporter’s records are not the first thing you do, they are the last thing you do? That is the reason why not obtainable from other sources is part of the Gonzales test. It’s the reason why in the regulation it specifically says that before you seek a subpoena, you need to make “all reasonable attempts to obtain the information from alternative sources.” It’s not a matter of classified or Rule 6 information. It’s a matter of just complying — basic compliance with the law.

The DOJ didn’t even attempt to argue they took any investigative steps before issuing the subpoenas. Instead, they claimed there was an “exception” to that rule that allowed them to bypass it entirely, which left the judge flabbergasted:

Judge: No, which language within this provision is clear that it’s an exception to the rule that’s stated two provisions above this that says, “The government should have made all reasonable attempts to obtain the information, communication records, or business records from alternative sources?” Maybe I’m missing it. You’re familiar with the regulations, so I just want to see where that is where it says except where it’s in this category, then subpoenas are the first thing you do, and you don’t do anything else. You go right to the subpoenas, and you don’t try to investigate otherwise, as Gonzales and the regulations otherwise provide.

The DOJ lawyer Sean Buckley responded:

Buckley: I would distinguish the language “should” in Section (4) from the language “must” in Section (c)(1) through (3). “Should” is advisory. And if the Attorney General authorizes the issuance of these subpoenas, it’s not a violation of the rule.

So DOJ is admitting: We did not actually do any investigation before issuing the subpoenas; we don’t have to, the rules only say we should. And the attorney general can just disregard them any time he wants.

The judge was not buying it, to say the least. He said he would quash the subpoenas unless the government withdrew them, and said if this was a civil case, he would be considering sanctions against the DOJ. The government ultimately withdrew them in disgrace.

You can read the full court transcript below.

It makes crystal clear that Clayton either lied to Congress that “all reasonable attempts” were made; or 2) he was purposefully misleading Congress by neglecting to mention that the Trump administration is manufacturing a magical exception to the DOJ guidelines that allows the attorney general to disregard them whenever he wants.

Clayton should be immediately called back to the Senate to answer for his seemingly false statement, and to tell lawmakers what other policies he believes agency heads don’t need to follow because they include the word “should.” And if you want to make your voice heard, use our action center to tell the Senate “No” on Clayton’s nomination.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom:

One of the most important press freedom cases in the country deserves far more attention: Journalist Catherine Herridge has paid at least $4,000 in fines for refusing to reveal a confidential source, and she’ll owe even more unless the Supreme Court steps in. Plus: a new award for public records reporting, and the Justice Department’s subpoenas to The New York Times go down in flames.

New prize rewards making public records truly public

Are you a journalist who uses the Freedom of Information Act in your reporting? You could win $25,000.

This week, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) launched the Penlight Prize, honoring outstanding paywall-free reporting based on public records. Inspired by our partnership with Wired to drop paywalls for articles based on public records — a huge success for that outlet — the award recognizes journalism that makes publicly funded documents and the reporting based on them available to everyone, not just subscribers.

We hope this award encourages more journalists to use FOIA and more news outlets to unlock their articles built on public records.

• Read more about the Penlight Prize

DOJ’s losing streak continues in New York Times subpoena case

Prosecutors agreed to withdraw subpoenas to The New York Times over the newspaper’s report about security concerns with the Qatari-gifted Air Force One replacement this week, after a federal judge made clear they’d lose otherwise and could be sanctioned. The government issued subpoenas targeting not only reporters but their relatives — a line that even the Mafia says shouldn’t be crossed.

This is now at least the third news outlet the Trump administration has tried and failed to force to name confidential sources. The lesson is simple: It’s past time to fight back against Trump administration censorship. Take these clowns to court. They lose regularly.

Congress should also pass a federal shield law like the PRESS Act to stop future attempts to drag journalists into court to uncover confidential sources.

• Watch our video about the DOJ’s tactics

House committee takes aim at BreakThrough News

The Times beat back the DOJ’s subpoenas, but another newsroom is now in the government’s crosshairs.

This week, a House committee subpoenaed independent outlet BreakThrough News, demanding internal records under the pretense of investigating foreign influence in the nonprofit sector.

FPF Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern said, “If lawmakers can abuse tax oversight to single out outlets whose reporting offends them today, no newsroom in America is safe from government intimidation tomorrow.” The committee must withdraw the subpoena immediately.

• Read our statement about the House probe

MSG revives legal theory that once haunted ‘60 Minutes’

In the 1990s, CBS spiked a “60 Minutes” interview with tobacco whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand after network lawyers warned it could be sued for encouraging him to break a nondisclosure agreement.

Now, Madison Square Garden is trying to use that same dangerous legal theory against Wired magazine. Its new lawsuit against Wired is the latest example of the use of “tortious interference with contract” claims to go after journalists who rely on sources bound by NDAs.

These claims are baseless, but they’re far from harmless.

• Read more about MSG’s frivolous SLAPP

Pentagon secrecy push threatens access to unclassified records

A new move by the Defense Department poses a systemic threat to accountability, writes FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper for MS NOW this week.

A proposal submitted to Congress last month would empower the Pentagon to exempt “controlled unclassified information” from the federal Freedom of Information Act — effectively putting millions of files beyond the reach of taxpayers, and open records laws, potentially forever.

• Read Harper’s op-ed here

DC Bar should push back against FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s abuse of power

Lawyers who facilitate sham settlements to benefit President Donald Trump are subject to professional discipline, according to a recent ruling in Trump’s spurious case against the IRS.

That’s why we’re asking District of Columbia attorney ethics officials to reopen our disciplinary complaint against Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, whose role in facilitating Trump’s settlement of his frivolous lawsuit against CBS raises similar concerns.

• Read our letter to the DC Bar

And so should you

You can also take action to combat Carr’s anti-speech antics. The FCC is accepting comments until July 29 on Carr’s bogus order directing an early review of broadcast licenses for eight Disney-owned ABC stations. Our easy-to-use action center allows you to tell the FCC to stop abusing its power to harass the press.

• Take a moment to file a comment with the FCC

We joined hundreds of journalists calling on the White House Correspondents’ Association to stand up for press freedom in front of the president and publicly defend the journalists he attacks at its rescheduled dinner tonight.

We filed a FOIA request to find out if — and how many times — FCC commissioners have shamelessly accepted gifts from media giants behind closed doors.

In one of the dumbest arguments we’ve ever heard, a judge in New Orleans is trying to claim that “open court” means a judge is present on the bench, not that the courtroom is open to the public.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s secrecy around its personnel files is “unworkable” and “untenable,” said FPF’s Harper.

This report “should be a wakeup call about the day-to-day horrors in our own local streets,” said FPF’s Deputy Advocacy Director Adam Rose. “The First Amendment doesn’t make us a bastion of free speech, it just makes these acts that much more shameful when our government routinely violates it.”

• Donate to FPF

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.

In the 1990s, CBS infamously spiked a damning “60 Minutes” interview with whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand about the tobacco industry because the network’s lawyers feared it could be sued for encouraging him to violate a nondisclosure agreement with his former employer, a tobacco company.

Three decades later, Madison Square Garden is trying to use the legal theory that CBS’ lawyers once feared, now against Wired magazine.

MSG’s new lawsuit is the latest example of a private litigant trying to wield a legal claim known as “tortious interference with contract” against journalists who rely on sources bound by confidentiality agreements. (The lawsuit includes defendant Katie Drummond, Wired global editorial director and Freedom of the Press Foundation board member. Drummond had no involvement in this article.)

Under the First Amendment, the claim is baseless, but that doesn’t make it harmless. Lawsuits like these discourage investigative reporting by making newsgathering riskier and more expensive, and by putting confidential sources at risk of being exposed.

The MSG suit stems from Wired’s reporting on a “talent database” maintained by the company that labeled some celebrities by race, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Much of the attention has focused on its defamation claim, which accuses Wired of falsely implying that the company used the database to discriminate against LGBTQIA people. Others have already explained the extraordinary legal weakness of this part of MSG’s case.

But alongside the defamation claim is another that has received far less attention. MSG’s second claim of “tortious interference” attacks the newsgathering process itself, and especially the use of confidential sources.

MSG’s second claim of “tortious interference” attacks the newsgathering process itself, and especially the use of confidential sources.

Wired’s article quotes a confidential source describing how MSG security monitors celebrities’ social media posts and marks them with a “risk score.” The lawsuit claims that Wired interfered with MSG’s contractual relationships by encouraging an employee to violate a company handbook and code of conduct to provide that information. It also threatens to force Wired to turn over communications with its sources during discovery in the lawsuit.

Taken together, the claim and the discovery demand amount to a one-two punch against investigative reporting: First, threaten journalists with liability for talking to insiders. Then, use the litigation to try to uncover who those insiders are, since sources bound by NDAs often ask journalists to keep their identities confidential.

MSG isn’t alone in using tortious interference against the press. In 2021, Donald Trump brought a similar claim against The New York Times and its reporters, arguing that they unlawfully induced his niece, Mary Trump, to violate a confidentiality agreement by leaking his tax returns.

Trump’s lawsuit against the Times failed, and for good reason. The First Amendment protects newsgathering, including asking sources for information, even when they may be gagged by a contract. Dismissing Trump’s claim, a New York court held that imposing liability on the Times for this kind of routine reporting would violate the Constitution. Or, as Times reporter Susanne Craig put it: “I knocked on Mary Trump’s door. She opened it. I think they call that journalism.”

The New York court’s decision in the Trump case was consistent with other courts’ recognition that the First Amendment bars tortious interference claims against the press for speaking to sources. Judges in California and Florida have dismissed similar claims on First Amendment grounds. Many states, including New York, also have reporter-source shield laws that would prevent private plaintiffs from forcing journalists to reveal their confidential sources.

But even when tortious interference claims and attempts to dig into reporters’ confidential sourcing fail, they can still chill journalism. They force news organizations to spend money defending lawsuits or fighting to shield their confidential sources’ identities, and they send an ominous message to potential whistleblowers that the reporters they talk to may not be able to protect them.

The sting from tortious interference lawsuits can be lessened by anti-SLAPP laws, which allow journalists and others to recover their attorney’s fees when they face meritless lawsuits based on their speech. But not every state has an anti-SLAPP law. Even in states that do, like New York, anti-SLAPP statutes don’t eliminate the upfront costs and uncertainty of defending a lawsuit. A national newsroom may be able to absorb the expense until it can be recouped. But a local news outlet or independent reporter may not.

As a result, regardless of its merits, a tortious interference claim can discourage reporters and newsrooms from asking sources for information and publishing newsworthy information if it comes from a source bound by an NDA. That’s exactly what happened when CBS backed away from airing the Wigand interview decades ago: Important information about a dangerous industry stayed hidden for months.

That’s why these claims deserve attention, and courts must continue to clearly reject them. By making the very process by which journalists uncover information legally risky, tortious interference claims help powerful institutions keep their secrets.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, July 23, 2026 — In a direct attack on the First Amendment, the House Ways and Means Committee has subpoenaed independent news outlet BreakThrough News, demanding internal records under the guise of investigating foreign influence in the tax-exempt nonprofit sector.

The committee, chaired by Rep. Jason Smith, is seeking BreakThrough News’ financial records, internal communications, and more. Lawmakers claim the probe focuses on tax compliance. But abusing congressional subpoena power to target a news outlet whose coverage a committee chair doesn’t like undermines core press freedom guarantees.

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

“Congress shouldn’t be using a tax investigation as a pretext to dig through a newsroom’s internal communications or financial records. Freedom of the press applies to all journalists, regardless of whether politicians like their editorial slant or their politics.

“Allowing a congressional committee to harass an independent newsroom with a broad subpoena sets an awful precedent. If lawmakers can abuse tax oversight to single out outlets whose reporting offends them today, no newsroom in America is safe from government intimidation tomorrow.”

FPF strongly urges the House Ways and Means Committee to withdraw its subpoena against BreakThrough News and stop using congressional oversight as a tool to retaliate against independent media.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, July 21, 2026 — Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) is proud to announce the launch of the Penlight Prize for excellence in paywall-free public records reporting.

The prize awards $25,000 to an outstanding piece of journalism that was made free to the public, and is substantially based on government records received via state and local public records laws or the Freedom of Information Act. Submissions will be reviewed by an all-star panel of judges with extensive experience both in public records reporting and advocacy for transparency laws.

The award was inspired by FPF’s partnership with Wired to make all articles substantially based on FOIA or public-records-based reporting paywall-free.

This year, our judges will be:

• Kate Doyle, senior analyst at the National Security Archive
• Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
• Jason Leopold, senior investigative writer at Bloomberg

The following can be attributed to Trevor Timm, FPF’s executive director:

“Journalism plays a vital role in our democracy. It informs the public and serves as a check on abuses of government and corporate power. At the same time, reporting that relies on government records generated at taxpayers’ expense should be available free for all. So we hope this award will honor the journalists who do the hard work of unearthing government documents, and will encourage news outlets to make all their public records reporting free.

“Last year, Freedom of the Press Foundation called on news organizations to remove paywalls from reporting based on FOIA records. Award-winning outlets like Wired and 404 Media joined the effort — and saw their subscriptions increase as a result. Now it’s time for others to follow their lead.”

This award is nonpartisan and does not preference a political or ideological viewpoint. It is being funded wholly by a generous FPF donor. The first-place winner will receive a $25,000 prize, a physical award, and a paid trip to New York City for a dinner and celebration later in 2026.

Submitted articles must have been available free of charge at publishing, with no paywall or obligation to subscribe. The award can be divided equally among up to four co-authors.

Find more information and apply at penlightprize.org/ by Sept. 1, 2026.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, July 20, 2026 — The New York Times reported today that the Trump administration issued third-party subpoenas seeking communications not only of journalists’ phone and text records but those of their relatives, including spouses and parents.

The subpoenas were part of the government’s investigation into the source of reporting that President Donald Trump’s Qatari-gifted Air Force One replacement was deemed unsafe to fly him back from the NATO summit in Turkey because, despite hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent to retrofit the plane, it still was not up to the standards of the existing Air Force One. Trump appears to have later admitted the plane needed a security boost, telling reporters it is now being “maxed out.”

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

“Even the Mafia says families are off limits. It’s gross that the administration — in its never-ending effort to harass and intimidate reporters who reveal its incompetence — is going after the communications of journalists’ relatives.

“The administration’s own guidelines say pursuing journalists is a last resort. But instead, it’s looking for any excuse to snoop on reporters and their relatives, because this has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with chilling journalism. They’re even seeking records from months before the report they claim they’re investigating.

“The Times’ reporting actually bolstered national security by ensuring that Trump and those who travel with him, including journalists, aren’t flying on an unsafe plane to serve the president’s personal vanity. Trump’s hangers-on should be sending the Times thank-you cards, not subpoenas.”

FPF is also suing the Department of Justice for the legal memorandum that reportedly justified the acceptance of the jet. We were forced to sue after the DOJ told us it would take 620 days to respond to our Freedom of Information Act request for the memo.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom:

Paramount’s merger with Warner Bros. Discovery would shortchange shareholders to reward company insiders willing to trade editorial independence for favoritism from the Trump administration. A new lawsuit backed by Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) is fighting to stop it. Plus: subpoenas to journalists, censorship of medical journals, and DOGE secrecy.

FPF backs lawsuit to stop Ellison-Trump corruption from tanking news outlets

A new shareholder’s derivative lawsuit against officers and directors of Paramount Skydance Corp. brought by attorneys from FPF and the Public Integrity Project seeks to halt Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

The complaint, brought on behalf of a shareholder against Paramount higher-ups including CEO David Ellison, seeks to prevent Paramount insiders from profiting at shareholders’ expense through breaches of their fiduciary duties to the company by trading editorial independence for favoritism from the Trump administration. Delaware litigator Mary S. Thomas is also on the case.

The complaint points to the well-documented unlawful payments and editorial concessions that surrounded Ellison’s Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount last year, as well as reported promises from Ellison and his centibillionaire father Larry to similarly overhaul CNN.

• Watch our video explaining the case here

The Ellisons’ real endgame for Paramount

All that being said, the Ellisons can’t be blowing this many billions just to kiss up to an unpopular lame duck president for a couple of years.

FPF Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern wrote for MS NOW that the real agenda may be to enrich Larry’s Oracle — which aspires to run a dystopian global surveillance network — by shaping narratives that scare Americans into giving up their rights. President Donald Trump’s corruption provides them with an opening to buy the influence they need in order to do that.

• Read the op-ed on the Ellisons’ surveillance ambitions

Trump subpoenas NYT for reporting his bribe plane is unsafe

The Trump administration subpoenaed New York Times journalists over reporting that the new Air Force One, which was gifted to the president by Qatar and retrofit at a cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, was deemed unsafe to fly Trump and those who travel with him — including reporters — back from the NATO summit in Turkey.

We said in a statement that “when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security. This is as clear an example as you can get.”

We’re also encouraging senators to vote against Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, Jay Clayton — the prosecutor whose office issued the subpoenas and who refused to answer questions about it at his recent confirmation hearing. You can too: Use our action center to write to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee today.

• Watch our video about the subpoenas

Censorship of medical journals infects journalism too

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seems better suited to be the subject of medical research than its arbiter. He’s not an editor or peer reviewer, and he’s definitely (and thankfully) not a judge. So why is he issuing veiled threats to scientific publications that journalists often cite in their reporting?

FPF’s Stern wrote about how Kennedy’s unlawful crackdown on medical literature — and similar tactics from others in the administration — severs journalists from their source materials, much like Kennedy once severed a roadkill raccoon from his manhood.

• Read about Kennedy’s censorship

What happened to DOGE’s records?

The Department of Government Efficiency has quietly ended its formal mission, leaving behind the most transformative restructuring of the federal government in a generation — and little public accounting of its actions.

Our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper explained that while DOGE was supposed to produce a public audit to improve accountability, it instead leaves Americans with no clear explanation of what it accomplished and how much it saved, if anything.

• Read Harper’s article in MS NOW

This has nothing to do with national security; it’s about shielding officials from embarrassment and accountability.

Catherine Herridge, an independent journalist, is standing up for the First Amendment even as she’s being fined $800 a day for refusing to reveal her source. Corporate media outlets should take note.

“Judge McCloskey was right to narrow his order against New Brunswick Today, but it’s outrageous that he’s extended it to purport to apply to any member of the press who wants to publish or write about this video,” said FPF Senior Advocacy Adviser Caitlin Vogus.

This has no place in a country that claims to protect freedom of the press. If this journalist was targeted because of his reporting or viewpoint, it’s an even more outrageous assault on the First Amendment.

FPF’s Vogus explained how age verification laws undermine everyone’s privacy, risk journalists’ confidential sources, and fail to keep kids safe.

Until Congress reforms the Espionage Act, it will remain a loaded gun pointed at whistleblowers and the press, as this new report highlights.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, July 15, 2026 — Yesterday, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and the Public Integrity Project filed a shareholder’s derivative lawsuit against officers and directors of Paramount Skydance Corp. seeking to halt its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Mary S. Thomas of Thomas Law LLC, an experienced commercial litigator in Delaware, where the suit was filed, is serving as Delaware counsel on the case.

The complaint, brought on behalf of Paramount shareholder Paul Robbins against Paramount higher-ups including CEO David Ellison, seeks to prevent Paramount insiders from profiting through breaches of their fiduciary duties to the company by trading editorial independence for favoritism from the Trump administration. This pattern includes, among other things:

• Promising to “overhaul” CNN (which Warner owns), according to a recent Wall Street Journal report, and potentially firing anchors and commentators President Donald Trump dislikes, if it acquires Warner Bros. Discovery.
• Making secret contributions to the settlement of Trump’s spurious lawsuit against “60 Minutes” and, according to the Journal, pressuring Paramount directors to settle. Federal and state elected officials have said they intend to bring bribery investigations relating to the settlement.
• Installing a pro-Trump GOP donor without journalism experience as “ombudsman” at CBS News to monitor “bias” pursuant to an agreement with Trump’s Federal Communications Commission, and otherwise handing the FCC oversight over its news operation, compromising its journalism.

The corruption surrounding the deal was underscored by a ProPublica report the morning after the lawsuit was filed that Paramount gifted FCC officials expensive tickets to the December Kennedy Center Gala, hosted by Trump, after the agency approved the Paramount-Skydance merger and as Paramount prepared to seek its approval of its Warner Bros. acquisition. FCC Chair Brendan Carr reportedly sat in a $125,000 seat in a private skybox with Ellison.

The lawsuit alleges that the planned Warner Bros. merger threatens Paramount and its stockholders, as well as the press and public who rely on CBS and CNN to remain informed. Paramount’s stock price has substantially declined since execution of the merger agreement.

Robbins is bringing the suit derivatively — that is, on behalf of the company.

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at FPF, said: “The economic terms of this merger, on their own, make no sense for Paramount shareholders. They make even less sense given reports of the Ellisons’ commitments to Trump to tank CNN’s reputation and viewership just like they did at CBS. CNN and CBS viewers want real journalism. If Paramount’s news networks are watered down to appease the administration, they’ll stop tuning in, and the public will be less informed.”

Brendan Ballou, CEO of the Public Integrity Project, said: “America’s richest people want to turn America’s most important media outlets into propaganda machines for the president. This is bad for Paramount’s shareholders. This is bad for democracy. And this is deeply corrupt. This case is about exposing and stopping that corruption.”

A copy of the complaint is available here.

Please email Seth Stern (seth@freedom.press) of FPF or Brendan Ballou (brendan@publicintegrityproject.org) of Public Integrity Project for any follow-up questions or inquiries.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seems better suited as the subject of medical research than its arbiter. He’s not an editor or peer reviewer, and he’s definitely (and thankfully) not a judge. So why is he issuing veiled threats to scientific publications — in the process eroding vital source material for journalists?

His title may be impressive (less so given that it’s from the same administration that appointed a mortgage regulator to run the nation’s intelligence agencies). But beyond that, he’s just some quack with a famous name who admits to dumping a bear carcass in Central Park and all sorts of other nonsense.

Legal authority aside, he is in no position to question brainworm-free scholars’ judgment, let alone censor them. We haven’t conducted a survey, but we’re pretty sure Americans would prefer medical literature not be subject to the whims of a guy who used to cut off roadkill raccoon penises when he wasn’t snorting coke off toilet seats.

But that didn’t stop him from firing off a letter last month to the editor-in-chief of Toxicology Reports, demanding a fuller accounting of why the journal pulled a study linking infant vaccines to sudden death, then posting the letter on social platform X for his millions of followers to see. He gave the editor two weeks to comply — a deadline he had no power to set for a demand he had no authority to make in the first place.

Plus, with thousands of Americans suffering from explosive diarrhea after cuts to foodborne illness monitoring under Kennedy’s watch, people aren’t really in a position to meet tight deadlines right now.

Kennedy is not the first Trump official to pull this kind of stunt. Last year, Ed Martin, then the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a letter to a pulmonary medicine journal published in Illinois by the American College of Chest Physicians. Martin informed the editor that journals like his were “conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates” and that he had “certain responsibilities.”

Martin’s letter asked a series of questions about the journal’s editorial decisions. Other journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, reportedly got similar correspondence from the since-disgraced lawyer.

Neither Martin nor Kennedy has any legal basis for these demands. HHS, of course, doesn’t regulate what a private scientific journal decides to publish or retract. And as a U.S. attorney, Martin’s job was to prosecute federal crimes in his district, not to police the editorial judgment of a specialty medical publication in another state with no connection to any case his office is handling.

Rather than using his actual prosecutorial powers, like warrants and subpoenas, Martin preferred to send intimidating (albeit typo-ridden) letters on government stationery and then post them on X to kiss up to Trump and his then-buddy Elon Musk.

The correspondence from Martin and Kennedy is similar to Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr’s baseless letters to broadcasters that he claims aren’t serving the “public interest” because they report news Trump would prefer the public not know.

In some ways, it’s even worse. At least Carr, unlike Martin and Kennedy, has some regulatory power over broadcast licensees — just not over their editorial decisions. And at least Carr’s victims are news companies that are likely to have First Amendment attorneys on retainer and some familiarity with the rights of journalists. They’re also accustomed to the spotlight. Niche medical journals, on the other hand, might not check those boxes.

It’s also reminiscent of the Trump administration’s efforts to intimidate law firms, nonprofits, and others. The modus operandi is to use the appearance of government power, minus any legitimate legal process, to make an institution second-guess its independence. The more they get away with it, the more powerful a weapon it becomes.

And all of it has downstream effects on the press. Medical journal articles, like research from nonprofits and facts exposed through litigation, are often cited by journalists as source material in coverage of everything from outbreaks to drug recalls to promising new treatments. When they’re censored, so is the news that reaches newspaper pages and the public.

Kennedy’s conduct, like Martin’s and Carr’s, is obviously unconstitutional jawboning, or use of threats and coercion to censor speakers that the government can’t censor directly. It’s something conservatives used to oppose, in far less egregious cases than this one. It needs to stop.

Kennedy might have once gotten away with severing that poor raccoon from its manhood, but he should not get away with severing journalists from reliable sources.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, July 11, 2026 — The New York Times revealed early this morning that the Trump administration subpoenaed its journalists over reporting that the new Air Force One, which was gifted to the president by Qatar and retrofit at a cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, was deemed unsafe to fly President Donald Trump back from the NATO summit in Turkey.

According to the Times, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had previously requested it not report on the debacle, calling it a national security matter.

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

“We’ve long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security. This is as clear an example as you can get. The administration’s embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn’t secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press. These kinds of stories show us exactly why we need to protect journalists and whistleblowers — without them, we’d never know about this sort of waste and incompetence.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, July 10, 2026 — A New Jersey court partially upheld a prior restraint against a community newspaper and vastly extended it to apply to all members of the “press,” in a troubling new order issued on July 9.

Judge Thomas McCloskey had previously granted an emergency order that required New Brunswick Today to remove from its YouTube channel a security video from a local high school that it received from a confidential source and to refrain from writing about the video.

The video showed a school security guard confronting a student who tried to pass through metal detectors with an airsoft BB gun, causing the school to go into lockdown. The court’s previous order also prohibited the newspaper from publishing any other school security videos.

In a July 9 order, McCloskey refused to lift the prior restraint entirely, though he limited it in some respects. The order allows New Brunswick Today to publish and write about the video at issue, but only if it redacts the faces and other identifying information of minors from the video and refrains from identifying them in writing.

The order also requires New Brunswick Today to submit the redacted recording to the school district and court for approval before publication.

Most troublingly, the court also significantly broadened the prior restraint to apply to all members of “the press.” The July 9 order prohibits “the press” in general from publishing the video without redacting the identity of juveniles or including identifying information of juveniles when writing about the video.

The following statement can be attributed to Caitlin Vogus, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) senior adviser for advocacy:

“Forcing news outlets to delete or withhold information and to submit their work for government approval before they can publish is censorship, full stop.

“The First Amendment could not be clearer: Prior restraints are almost never allowed. Neither judges nor the law can censor the press. Yet that is exactly what Judge McCloskey’s order permits.

“Judge McCloskey was right to narrow his order against New Brunswick Today, but it’s outrageous that he’s extended it to purport to apply to any member of the press who wants to publish or write about this video. Judges should know better. By substituting the court’s judgment about what to publish for that of any news outlet, the court has flatly defied the First Amendment and decades of Supreme Court precedent.

“Even in cases that don’t involve core First Amendment concerns, judges aren’t kings — they have no authority to issue orders binding unidentified journalists across the country who aren’t in their courtroom or parties to any case before them.

“Similar orders have been overturned across the country. If New Brunswick Today appeals and higher courts faithfully apply the law, this one should be as well.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom:

When federal agents show up over a social media post about the news, press freedom is everyone’s problem. Plus, a New Jersey judge just doubled down on a stunningly unconstitutional gag order. Read on for these stories and more.

ICE wants to scare you out of sharing the news

The government is investigating Americans for sharing the news.

Syracuse.com reported last month that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents confronted Paigelynne Gonyea at a polling place where she worked and demanded she sign a form letter stating she could be criminally prosecuted.

The visit appears to have been over a post in which Gonyea shared a picture of ICE agent Jonathan Ross that The Minnesota Star Tribune used in its news report first identifying him as Renee Good’s killer, and repeated his name.

As Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Senior Advocacy Adviser Caitlin Vogus wrote, “This tactic allows the government to kill two birds with one stone: censoring individual critics and limiting the reach of the press.”

• Read Vogus’ article

New Jersey court doubles down on terrible censorship order

A New Jersey court partially upheld a prior restraint prohibiting community newspaper New Brunswick Today from publishing a video showing a security incident at a local high school, and vastly extended it to apply to all members of the “press,” in a troubling new order issued on July 9.

“Forcing news outlets to delete or withhold information and to submit their work for government approval before they can publish is censorship, full stop,” said FPF’s Vogus. “Even in cases that don’t involve core First Amendment concerns, judges aren’t kings — they have no authority to issue orders binding unidentified journalists across the country who aren’t in their courtroom or parties to any case before them.”

• Read the full statement

Lessons from The Intercept’s Signal tipline username breach

Someone has been masquerading as The Intercept using the Signal username previously listed on its tip page, placing potential sources at risk.

We don’t know precisely how long the username was commandeered or what led to it being compromised. But there’s a very short list of things that could have gone wrong, and our digital security team has tips on how similar breaches can be prevented.

• Read their tips

Disciplinary office ignores complaints against prosecutor behind journalist raid

In February, we filed a disciplinary complaint against Gordon Kromberg, the assistant U.S. attorney who signed the warrant application authorizing the FBI’s raid on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson. Our complaint was straightforward: Kromberg violated prosecutors’ duty of candor by failing to mention the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a federal law that limits searches of journalists’ files and devices, in his warrant application.

The Virginia State Bar, however, declined to investigate, reasoning that it was up to the judge to decide whether Kromberg misled the court. Since then, two judges have scolded Kromberg for the omission of the PPA. But the bar won’t substantively respond to our supplemental complaint or our repeated requests to reopen the investigation.

A disciplinary system that manufactures reasons not to look at uncomfortable cases — and then ghosts complainants when it runs out of excuses — protects the powerful, not the public.

• Read about the bar’s dereliction

Hate censorship? Read this book

Over the past decade, activists and journalists of all political stripes have found their bank accounts closed for exercising their First Amendment rights. FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm discussed a new book by board President Rainey Reitman, “Transaction Denied: Big Finance’s Power to Punish Speech,” which tells the stories behind these incidents and proposes some solutions. The book also reveals how FPF got its start, and half the proceeds from its sale go to support our work.

• Watch Timm’s video about the book

America @ 250: A Journalism Reckoning

Join FPF Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern on Thursday, July 16, from 6-9 p.m. CT at Impact House in Chicago for an event hosted by the Field Foundation of Illinois about journalism’s history and future.

• Register here

The Supreme Court couldn’t be bothered to correct litigants who think filing a lawsuit gives them permission to force journalists to burn sources. Fewer whistleblowers will come forward as a result.

Protecting acts of journalism is the key to protecting press freedom, FPF’s Deputy Chief of Advocacy Adam Rose explained.

“You can’t introduce somebody’s reading habits, or their library, their bookshelf, as evidence of a specific crime in court,” FPF’s Stern said regarding Daniel Sanchez Estrada’s 30-year sentence for transporting zines.

WhatsApp users should consider switching to usernames because someone who hijacks your phone number could also likely recover other accounts, FPF Deputy Director of Digital Security Martin Shelton explained.

“Carr may be a lost cause — he clearly made a bet that sacrificing his integrity as a regulator and attorney to hitch his wagon to Trump’s political movement would further his career,” we wrote in our comments to the Federal Communications Commission.

Good that this legal challenge can move forward, but Utah lawmakers could restore statehouse access for all journalists by ending this unconstitutional policy now.

Back in February, we filed a disciplinary complaint against Gordon Kromberg, the assistant U.S. attorney who signed the warrant application authorizing the FBI’s raid on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson.

Our complaint was straightforward: Kromberg’s application never mentioned the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a federal law that limits searches of journalists’ files and devices. Omitting adverse authority violates a prosecutor’s duty of candor, especially in warrant application proceedings with no one present to speak up for the rights of the warrant’s subject.

The Virginia State Bar, however, declined to investigate. It reasoned that it was up to the judge, not the bar, to decide whether Kromberg misled the court by omitting the PPA from his warrant application. That struck us as a strange conclusion — why do the rules the bar is charged with enforcing include a duty of candor, then?

But we don’t have to argue the point in the abstract anymore, because the judiciary has since spoken clearly and repeatedly, scolding Kromberg for the omission. But that hasn’t caused the Virginia Bar to revisit the case — or if it has, it won’t tell us.

We resubmitted the complaint and explained to the Virginia Bar that its justification for declining to investigate no longer holds water, and asked it to reopen the investigation. But first it ignored our calls and emails for months, then told us it is sworn to secrecy about disciplinary complaints to such an extent it can’t even tell us — the people who filed the complaint — whether it received it, or inform us of whether our new complaint has also been dismissed. Odd, because it did the first time.

At least the Virginia Bar’s consistent — it shouldn’t be surprising that an entity so nontransparent would be hesitant to discipline attorneys for lack of candor. But if it wants to build trust in the legal profession — its supposed raison d’être — it needs to explain itself, and if it’s run out of excuses, then it needs to actually investigate. Otherwise, it functions more as a protection racket than a disciplinary office.

Soon after our initial complaint was rejected, Magistrate Judge William Porter asked Kromberg and his fellow prosecutors, “Did you not tell me intentionally or did you not know,” in reference to their failure to alert him to a highly relevant federal law like the PPA. Then, in a 22-page opinion, Porter went further, writing that the government’s omission “has seriously undermined the Court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures in this proceeding.”

He also made clear that had the government disclosed the law, he might well have rejected the warrant application outright, or at least asked harder questions before signing off. That might have stopped the government from seizing terabytes of data from Natanson — which it has since characterized as “contraband” to retain — and stopping her reporting in its tracks.

Then in May, U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga seconded Porter’s assessment, noting “the harassing and chilling effects such a seizure could have on a reporter,” and scolding prosecutors for their failure to mention the PPA in the warrant application.

This is precisely the judicial confirmation the bar said it was waiting for. There’s no longer any plausible argument that the bar needs to defer to a judicial process that hasn’t run its course.

And yet … crickets, in response to our supplemental complaint, our follow-up emails, and our numerous phone calls and voicemails to Clerk of the Disciplinary System Joanne Fronfelter and Bar Counsel Renu Brennan.

We finally got a response on Tuesday from Acting Executive Director Janet Van Cuyk, who told us she can’t tell us anything, per the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. We’ll only know if the resubmitted complaint ever hit the bar association’s inbox if it decides to initiate a public hearing.

Van Cuyk suggested we email the general intake email address to which we submitted the complaint. It’s unclear why — if she’s bound to silence, so are they — but we’ve done that repeatedly since February, and we’ve heard nothing.

The whole justification for self-regulation is that the bar will hold its own accountable to build public trust. A disciplinary system that manufactures reasons not to look at uncomfortable cases — and then ghosts complainants when it runs out of excuses — isn’t protecting the public. Instead, it’s protecting the lawyers it’s supposed to protect the public from.

Particularly when it comes to complaints against attorneys who are public officials at the center of national news, if you think the rules don’t allow for transparency, then change the damn rules.

Federal officials have repeatedly claimed that criticizing immigration officials or identifying officers is unlawful and dangerous, despite clear First Amendment protections for both. Now, the government appears to be taking a disturbing new step: investigating Americans for posting information on social media that originally appeared in news reports.

This tactic allows the government to kill two birds with one stone: censoring individual critics and limiting the reach of the press. If the government can deter people from sharing news reports through threats of investigation or prosecution, it can undermine the public impact of journalism without ever censoring a newsroom directly.

Local news outlet Syracuse.com reported last month that federal agents tracked down a New York woman to demand she remove a social media post that they claimed threatened Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. Agents confronted the woman, Paigelynne Gonyea, where she worked at a polling place and demanded she sign a form letter stating she could be criminally prosecuted for threatening a federal officer.

Gonyea told Syracuse.com that she believed agents were referring to a January Instagram post “where she named the ICE agent who shot protester Renee Good.” In the post, Gonyea shared a picture of the agent, Jonathan Ross, that The Minnesota Star Tribune used in its news report first identifying him as the shooter.

Gonyea wrote, “BREAKING: The ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good in broad daylight has been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Minnesota Star Tribune. I think today is a great day for Jonathan to be indicted!”

The Department of Homeland Security later told The Associated Press that Gonyea also posted Ross’ home address, and a spokeswoman shared with the AP reporter a different, redacted social media post purporting to come from Gonyea’s account. But Gonyea denied posting Ross’ address, and DHS has not made the alleged post publicly available. Gonyea also told NPR that agents who came to the polling station had a copy of her Instagram post with the photo of Ross, which does not include his address.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigated Gonyea and other incidents it claims amounted to illegal “doxxing” of ICE agents. We’re seeking records about whether the investigations of Gonyea and others are based on people reposting information from news outlets, or have otherwise targeted journalism.

These records should be made public, especially because the agents’ legal warnings to Gonyea closely track similar threats the federal government has made to journalists. Administration officials have repeatedly claimed that journalists who photograph or name ICE officers are doxxing officers, inciting violence, or even committing violence. The First Amendment, however, protects publishing truthful, lawfully obtained information and photographing officers in public, whether it’s done by journalists or others.

In addition, if Gonyea is right that agents confronted her over an Instagram post repeating information from the Tribune, then the government’s actions may reveal a new way it’s trying to suppress reporting. DHS may not be able to censor reporting by chilling journalists, but it can suppress the news if it can scare people out of reposting it.

DHS may not be able to censor reporting by chilling journalists, but it can suppress the news if it can scare people out of reposting it.

Another of the administration’s favorite tricks, intimidating journalists’ sources, stops newsgathering before it starts. But when a story slips through the cracks, bullying those who share it offers a censorship backup plan.

This strategy also allows DHS to avoid directly confronting news outlets and journalists, who are better positioned to fight back against unconstitutional censorship orders or other First Amendment violations. Regular people are more likely to be dissuaded by the threat of criminal prosecution and less likely to bring court cases that can result in precedent that checks government power.

This undermines journalism’s ability to hold power accountable. Freedom of the press means little if no one can talk about a news story because they’re scared they’ll go to jail.

We must also remain vigilant against other ways that the government may be going around journalists and outlets to suppress news published online. Gonyea’s experience raises the disturbing possibility that the government could be pressuring tech platforms to remove posts by people that reference news reports about ICE by claiming that they’re illegal.

The Department of Justice has already coerced Facebook into removing at least one group that allowed people to report sightings of federal agents, arguing that it was inciting violence. It also pressured Apple and Google into removing ICE tracking apps based on similarly spurious claims.

We don’t know whether this has happened in cases involving other types of online content, including with demands to remove posts that simply repeat information from news reports, because these requests are often invisible to the public.

News outlets may raise alarms when platforms remove their reporting, but individual users are less likely to publicly object if their posts citing a news story are removed. Platforms’ transparency reports are too vague and high level to shed light on these demands. FOIA requests about the government’s demands for platforms can help, but often only if you have the ability to sue.

Whether the government quietly coerces platforms into removing individual posts about the news or loudly pressures individual Americans into taking them down themselves, the effect is the same: The public’s ability to see, share, and discuss reporting that holds officials accountable is limited.

These tactics must be recognized as a threat to press freedom, even if they don’t directly involve a newsroom. Freedom of the press can’t end when the news story is published. Defending a free press means defending everyone’s right to participate in the public conversation that allows that journalism to spread.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom:

Journalist Katie Phang recently won a major victory in her lawsuit seeking to force the government to follow the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Her message to other independent journalists who want to fight government secrecy? “Our case is proof that you can do this.” Read on for more on how you can help defend press freedom this week.

A journalist’s fight for Epstein transparency

When Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act with broad bipartisan support, the Justice Department was given until Dec. 19, 2025, to release all unclassified files related to the Epstein investigation.

The department blew the deadline, but trial lawyer, independent journalist, and former MSNBC host Katie Phang sued to force compliance. Last week, she won a decision that directed the government to start producing documents it kept hidden, or explain why it cannot.

We hosted an online panel about the implications of the case with Phang; her lawyer, Brendan Ballou of the Public Integrity Project; and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper, moderated by FPF Senior Advocacy Adviser Caitlin Vogus.

• Watch the Epstein discussion

New Jersey prosecutors: Drop charges against journalists who covered Delaney Hall

Prosecutors are holding criminal charges over the heads of at least three journalists who were wrongfully arrested while covering immigration protests at Delaney Hall in New Jersey, despite clearly identifying themselves as press and despite public officials acknowledging that journalists would be exempt from Newark’s curfew.

Journalists need to be able to report the news without fear of arrest. The pending charges against press who were working in Newark chill their ongoing work and the media as a whole, which in turn does continued damage to public safety. You can use our action center to tell prosecutors it’s past time to drop these baseless cases.

• Write a letter to New Jersey prosecutors

Age verification law puts journalists at risk

The Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act passed the House this week. If it — or similar legislation — becomes law, it would fundamentally change the way everyone, not just kids, accesses the internet.

That’s because these laws strongly incentivize — and, for some services, outright require — age verification. That’s a big problem for people who need to be able to use the internet anonymously, like journalists and their sources.

Vogus, along with Aliya Bhatia of the Center for Democracy & Technology, explained in The Intercept how requiring online age verification would make it harder for anonymous sources to connect with journalists through online platforms. Read it, and then use our action center to tell Congress today not to pass online censorship bills in the guise of kids safety.

• Read Vogus and Bhatia’s article

Brendan Carr isn’t fooling anyone

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr has a new excuse to harass news outlets: Requiring talk shows to reapply for permission to interview whatever politicians they want. Carr — known for embracing President Donald Trump’s agenda — claims that ABC’s “The View” needs to explain why it qualifies for a “bonafide news” exception to equal time requirements. Other talk shows, like conservative talk radio, have not drawn similar ire.

As we wrote in a public comment to the agency, “No matter what pretexts the FCC cites, anyone with a smidgen of common sense knows exactly what is going on: an FCC led by a man who has publicly disclaimed independence from Trump is using its authority both frivolously and selectively to do Trump’s bidding.” We encourage you to file your own comment before July 6. Our action center makes it easy for you.

• Read our FCC comment

Government wants your location data? Get a warrant, Supreme Court says

The Supreme Court just delivered its most important Fourth Amendment decision in years — and it’s a win for your privacy. In Chatrie v. United States, the court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to get a warrant for “geofence” demands that track location data.

We’ve written before about how geofences — which allow police to draw a virtual boundary around a crime scene and compel tech companies to turn over location data for devices in the area — could be used as a tool of mass surveillance or to monitor journalists and their sources.

The court’s decision puts an important check on this power. FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm broke down the ruling, explaining, “There’s no doubt that we all have more privacy rights with our cellphones today than we did yesterday.”

• Watch Timm’s video about the ruling

“The Supreme Court should use this opportunity to make clear that plaintiffs and prosecutors cannot commandeer the Fourth Estate to help them build their cases,” said FPF Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern about journalist Catherine Herridge’s case.

The New York Times beat the Pentagon in court again after it tried to shut out the press. If the Defense Department keeps trying to shut out the press contrary to the court’s rulings, the judge should respond with sanctions or contempt.

The fired Stars and Stripes ombudsman is getting in on the action of suing the Pentagon for its disregard for the First Amendment. Good. More journalists should take this administration to court.

Possessing zines and being in a book club were used as evidence that the Prairieland defendants were part of a terrorist cell — and a court agreed. This is a shocking erosion of the First Amendment.

The government recently failed to force Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters to expose their sources before a grand jury, but the threat still looms. The next Congress must pass the PRESS Act to protect sources and the public’s right to know, Stern explained.

• Donate to FPF

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.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom:

A Texas man was sentenced to decades in prison for transporting political publications. We break down what his case means for press freedom. Plus, more on Brendan Carr’s latest attack on the media and journalist Catherine Herridge’s fight to protect her confidential sources.

Can’t punish reporting it? Punish transporting it

We’ve often written about the bipartisan trend of criminalizing mere possession or transporting of information. This week it became more real than ever.

Texas artist Daniel “Des” Sanchez Estrada was sentenced to 30 years in prison for transporting a box of leftist political pamphlets, allegedly to prevent them from being used as evidence against his wife, who attended a protest where a police officer was shot. She was sentenced to 70 years.

But the pamphlets said nothing about the protest or the shooting, which his wife was not alleged to have been involved with anyway. In fact, they aren’t far off from the pro-Revolution writings the framers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment’s press clause.

We said in a statement, “Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings.” Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern and columnist Jeremy Busby also wrote about the draconian sentence and what it means for journalists in The Intercept.

• Read The Intercept article

Tell Trump’s censorship czar to stop retaliating against ABC

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr is going after ABC again, this time over the decades-old “bona fide news” exemption that protects its daytime talk show, “The View,” from the regulator’s equal-time rules.

Everyone with a smidgen of common sense knows what Carr’s up to: Retaliation for ABC’s exercise of First Amendment rights. President Donald Trump has a long-standing grudge against ABC, and Carr publicly endorses Trump’s campaign to silence his critics and reshape the media — and ABC specifically — to be more gentle to his fragile ego.

ABC is urging the public to file comments with the FCC reminding it of the Constitution. You can use our action center to do so quickly and easily.

• File a comment with the FCC

Judge to journalist: Burn your source or pay $800 per day

The government flouts court orders constantly and faces no meaningful consequence. At worst, it gets scolded by a judge.

But when an independent journalist like Catherine Herridge seeks to keep her word to confidential sources who relied on her to protect their identities? That’ll cost $800 a day, even though she’s seeking Supreme Court review of the anti-press ruling holding her in contempt.

As we said in a statement, “The prospect of crippling fines will especially impact independent journalists like Herridge, at a time when corporate outlets are increasingly compromised. Congress needs to provide clear statutory protection against compelled disclosure of journalists’ sources by passing a strong shield law like the PRESS Act.”

• Read our statement about the fine

Government agencies: Repeal gag policies before you get sued and lose

The Coconut Grove Spotlight, a small nonprofit newsroom in Miami, is the latest outlet to challenge a policy funnelling press inquiries through a public information office. These PIO policies are unconstitutional, but government agencies across the country still maintain them.

And they normalize even worse abuses by the feds. The Trump administration recently pushed to have government employees sign corporate-style nondisclosure agreements, and the Defense Department shut off access to journalists who wouldn’t promise to only report what the Pentagon authorizes.

FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm explains why any agency that still has one of these policies needs to drop it before they’re next to get sued and lose.

• Watch Timm’s video

California schemin’ to erode transparency

Our friends in Sacramento must have whiplash after a series of extreme changes to a proposed public records law that would have severely undermined transparency. Ultimately, a coalition of press freedom advocates salvaged an important victory, as lawmakers backed down and removed the problematic additions to the bill.

Prior to the retreat, FPF Deputy Director of Advocacy Adam Rose explained why the legislation was one of the most anti-transparency bills in recent memory. It would have even allowed the government to sue people for daring to request public records. Yikes! Successfully gutting such awful provisions is a reminder of the work it takes to ensure state capitals preserve the public’s right to know.

• Watch Rose’s video

“There are far better uses of prosecutorial resources than going after a journalist who used publicly available information” to expose antisemitism, FPF’s Stern said about the case against Tim Burke.

Who would have thought that an “ombudsman” handpicked to appease Donald Trump and his lapdog Brendan Carr would have nothing to say about “60 Minutes” being gutted to ... appease Donald Trump and Brendan Carr.

The shameful killings of journalists in Gaza by the Israeli military continue. Targeting journalists is wrong, and it must stop.

It’s shameful for a news outlet to call on the government to deport people it doesn’t like. Nobody who values the First Amendment would encourage kicking people out of the country for their speech.

If whistleblowers can’t speak to reporters in confidence, government corruption, abuse, and wrongdoing will never see the light of day.

This is an outrageous take by the Post editorial board. Transparency, including cameras in the court, is how power is held to account.

Judicial records can’t be kept secret without a compelling interest, says the Tennessee Supreme Court. This is a major win for public access.

• Donate to FPF

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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, June 24, 2026 — A D.C. appeals court declined yesterday to pause an $800-per-day fine against investigative reporter Catherine Herridge for refusing to identify her confidential sources in response to a civil subpoena.

Herridge was held in contempt of court in 2024 for refusing to divulge sources for her reporting at Fox News on an investigation of a scientist and university president with alleged ties to the Chinese military. She asked for a pause of the daily fine while she petitions the Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s recent ruling against her, but her request was denied in yesterday’s one-sentence order.

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

“Every journalist who depends on confidential sources to inform the public should be alarmed that a reporter has been ordered to pay almost $1,000 a day for not burning her sources. Sources come forward at great personal and professional risk to expose government abuse and corruption because they believe journalists can protect them. Will future whistleblowers in D.C. and elsewhere trust investigative journalists who they now know may have to choose between keeping their word and financial ruin?

“The prospect of crippling fines will especially impact independent journalists like Herridge, at a time when corporate outlets are increasingly compromised. Congress needs to provide clear statutory protection against compelled disclosure of journalists’ sources by passing a strong shield law like the PRESS Act.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, June 23, 2026 — Texas artist Daniel “Des” Sanchez Estrada was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison today for transporting a box of zines, or political pamphlets. The prosecution claimed Sanchez moved the zines so they wouldn’t incriminate his wife, who attended a protest outside the Prairieland immigration detention center near Dallas, where a police officer was wounded by gunfire.

The zines at issue may have discussed controversial political views, but they said nothing about the shooting or the Prairieland protest, and prosecutors did not allege that Sanchez’s wife, Maricela Rueda (who was sentenced to 70 years today), fired any shots or had anything to do with the shooting.

According to a press release from the Free Des Support Committee, court observers reported that, in sentencing Sanchez and his co-defendants, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said he intended to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology.”

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

“If prosecutors are correct that Sanchez moved zines because he feared they’d try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s. Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal, so what legitimate evidence could he possibly have been concealing? Political zines like those Sanchez possessed are no different from the pro-Revolution pamphlets this country’s founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment’s press clause.

“Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings, from conflating dissent with terrorism to deporting immigrants who report on protests or criticize wars the U.S. bankrolls. Americans should not make the mistake of believing Sanchez’s sentence only threatens immigrants, leftists, or so-called Antifa members — they’re just the low-hanging fruit, not the end game.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom:

This week, Paramount suddenly discovers a “conflict of interest,” New Jersey courts drag their feet on an unconstitutional prior restraint against a local newspaper, and Indiana dresses up execution secrecy as dignity. Plus, a birthday wish for the Espionage Act’s 109th: a complete overhaul.

At Paramount, criticism is a conflict of interest

David Ellison’s Paramount rejected an anti-merger ad from Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) last week, citing a conflict of interest.

Paramount sure has a strange definition of “conflict of interest.” Its executives see no conflict in agreeing with the Trump administration to hire a right-wing “bias ombudsman” to police CBS’ journalism, promising President Donald Trump “sweeping changes” at CNN if he allows them to buy its parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, throwing a fancy dinner party honoring Trump while ignoring his attacks on CBS and CNN journalists, or pressuring “60 Minutes” to censor stories to keep the president happy. But they refused to break into their regularly scheduled kissing up to Trump during the UFC Freedom 250 event for a mere 30 seconds of criticism.

• Watch the anti-censorship ad

Clean up your mess, New Jersey courts

A May order requiring New Brunswick Today to take down and stop reporting on a video showing a school security guard confronting a student was a blatantly unconstitutional prior restraint.

After several rounds of arguments and briefs citing seminal First Amendment precedents, Superior Court Judge Thomas McCloskey, who entered the order, and the New Jersey appellate courts have to know it’s wrong. This isn’t exactly a legal gray area. And yet, the courts keep stalling a hearing on whether to lift the order, allowing the censorship to continue. FPF Senior Advocacy Adviser Caitlin Vogus has more in NJ.com.

• Read about the New Jersey case

Indiana’s secret executions have nothing to do with dignity

Prison officials in Indiana claim their ban on journalists attending executions, which an appellate court recently upheld, is mainly about respecting the dignity of the condemned. Nonsense.

FPF contributor Jeremy Busby explained in The Intercept that the ban is really about obstructing government accountability and public oversight of executions, which are routinely botched even when the media is present.

• Read why the ban lacks dignity

The Espionage Act has been around for 109 years too long

The archaic Espionage Act has long been weaponized to prosecute whistleblowers and threaten journalists — no matter what they exposed or why.

This week marked the 109th anniversary of the law, and we’re joining our friends at Defending Rights & Dissent in calling on Congress to finally fix it by passing the Daniel Ellsberg Press Freedom and Whistleblower Protection Act. Rainey Reitman, FPF’s board president, explained in a new video.

• Watch Reitman’s video here

Attacks on the press at Delaney Hall

Last week, FPF spoke to journalists and advocates about attacks on the press covering demonstrations outside of Delaney Hall, an immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey.

Reporters Wali Khan and Amanda Moore, U.S. Press Freedom Tracker Managing Reporter Stephanie Sugars, and FPF Deputy Director of Advocacy Adam Rose described the egregious conduct of federal, state, and local law enforcement, including the use of pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, and batons against members of the press. The Tracker is reporting on or working to verify more than 50 assaults and other aggressions against journalists, many of whom have been deliberately targeted.

• Watch our Delaney Hall discussion here

Leaked memos showing that even White House lawyers were concerned by proposals to suspend habeas corpus are the perfect example of why we’re fighting for the public’s continued access to presidential records.

This decision sounds pretty crooked. Good thing we have highly respected television news magazines and 24-hour news networks that can help get to the bottom of Trump-Ellison corruption. Oh, right …

Politicians shouldn’t be able to use the legal system to bully the press. We need strong anti-SLAPP laws in every state and at the federal level to help put a stop to this nonsense.

These gag policies have repeatedly been held unconstitutional. Government agencies that still have them need to save taxpayers money by repealing them now rather than waiting for their turn to get sued.

A common sense decision that’s good news for journalists, watchdogs, taxpayers, and everyone who cares about government transparency.

We should be teaching future journalists to stand up for their independence, not submit to authority. At least these student journalists have learned that lesson.

• Donate to FPF

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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, June 16, 2026 — Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) revealed today that Paramount+ rejected an ad calling attention to President Donald Trump’s crooked meddling in media transactions to extract favorable coverage. The ad would have run on the platform during the same time as the UFC Freedom 250 event, broadcast live June 14 from the White House on President Donald Trump’s 80th birthday.

The ad warns Americans about the proposed merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery, which would place CNN under the editorial control of David Ellison, a Trump-aligned investor who has already made documented concessions to the administration as a condition of regulatory approval. As the ad shows, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s secretary of defense, has publicly declared that “the sooner the Ellisons take over that network, the better.”

The advertisement features recently fired “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley’s accusation that CBS — which Ellison’s company owns — demanded his stories include “falsehoods and bias” to appease the president. Paramount+ declined to air it.

“Ellison has already shown his cards on editorial independence, but in case there was any doubt, his company has now declined to air a straightforward message about what his proposed takeover of CNN, HBO, and other outlets would mean for press freedom,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at FPF. “Ellison won’t air criticism of himself, his company, or his buddy Trump. That’s bad for press freedom, bad for the public, and bad for Paramount — just look at CBS’ recent struggles under Ellison’s watch. Billionaires who don’t respect the First Amendment should stay out of the news business.”

Stern added that Paramount, despite citing a conflict of interest in rejecting the ad, “apparently sees no conflict of interest in promising the Trump administration editorial concessions in exchange for merger approvals, in throwing fancy dinner parties honoring Trump while he attacks CBS and CNN journalists, or in airing a UFC event which functioned as an hourslong commercial for Donald Trump and Truth Social.”

The rejected ad opens with Trump calling reporters “the enemy of the people” and closes with a direct call to block the merger — a message Paramount+, the streamer owned by the very company seeking approval for that merger, chose to suppress.

You can watch the ad Paramount+ refused to air below. Please contact us if you would like further comment.