Freedom of the Press

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

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

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

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

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

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

Read his full statement.

DHS targets journalists for speaking out about Gaza

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

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

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

Watch the discussion here

A $50 lesson in press freedom

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

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

Read the op-ed.

Journalists targeted at Oregon protests

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

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

Read more here.

Court suspends journalist injunction in Chicago

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

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

Read more here.

Immigration agents claim routine reporting violates federal law

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

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

Read the full statement.

What we’re reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holding federal agents accountable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

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

Kansas county pays $3M for forgetting the First Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secrecy and the midterms

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

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

Charges dropped against Cincinnati journalist

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

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

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

What we’re reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State shield laws are another barrier to newsroom searches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next time, think before you raid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 227 days for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like, and the government hasn’t stopped targeting journalists for deportation. Read on for news from Illinois, our latest public records lawsuit, and how you can take action to protect journalism.

Enforce ICE restraining orders now

A federal judge in Chicago yesterday entered an order to stop federal immigration officers from targeting journalists and peaceful protesters, affirming journalists’ right to cover protests and their aftermath without being assaulted or arrested.

Judge Sara Ellis entered her ruling — which extended a similar prior order against Immigration and Customs Enforcement — in dramatic fashion, quoting everyone from Chicago journalist and poet Carl Sandburg to the Founding Fathers. But the real question is whether she’ll enforce the order when the feds violate it, as they surely will. After all, they violated the prior order repeatedly and egregiously.

Federal judges can fine and jail people who violate their orders. But they rarely use those powers, especially against the government. That needs to change when state thugs are tearing up the First Amendment on Chicago’s streets. We suspect Sandburg would agree.

Journalist Raven Geary of Unraveled Press summed it up at a press conference after the hearing: “If people think a reporter can’t be this opinionated, let them think that. I know what’s right and what’s wrong. I don’t feel an ounce of shame saying that this is wrong.”

Congratulations to Geary and the rest of the journalists and press organizations in Chicago and Los Angeles that are standing against those wrongs by taking the government to court and winning. Listen to Geary’s remarks here.

Journalists speak out about abductions from Gaza aid flotillas

We partnered with Defending Rights & Dissent to platform three U.S. journalists who were abducted from humanitarian flotillas bound for Gaza and detained by Israel.

They discussed the inaction from their own government in the aftermath of their abduction, shared their experiences while detained, and reflected on what drove them to take this risk while so many reporters are self-censoring.

We’ll have a write-up of the event soon, but it deserves to be seen in full. Watch it here.

FPF takes ICE to court over dangerous secrecy

We filed yet another Freedom of Information Act lawsuit this week — this time to uncover records on ICE’s efforts to curtail congressional access to immigration facilities.

“ICE loves to demand our papers but it seems they don’t like it as much when we demand theirs,” attorney Ginger Quintero-McCall of Free Information Group said.

If you are a FOIA lawyer who is interested in working with us pro bono or for a reduced fee on FOIA litigation, please email lauren@freedom.press.

Read more about our latest lawsuit here.

If Big Tech can’t withstand jawboning, how can individual journalists?

Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz convened yet another congressional hearing on Biden-era “jawboning” of Big Tech companies. The message: Government officials leaning on these multibillion-dollar conglomerates to influence the views they platform was akin to censorship.

Sure, the Biden administration’s conduct is worth scrutinizing and learning from. But if you accept the premise that gigantic tech companies are susceptible to soft pressure from a censorial government, doesn’t it go without saying that so are individual journalists who lack anything close to those resources?

We wrote about the numerous instances of “jawboning” of individual reporters during the current administration that Senate Republicans failed to address at their hearing. Read more here.

Tell lawmakers from both parties to oppose Tim Burke prosecution

Conservatives are outraged at Tucker Carlson for throwing softballs to neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes. But the Trump administration is continuing its predecessor’s prosecution of journalist Tim Burke for exposing Tucker Carlson whitewashing another antisemite — Ye, formerly known as Kanye West.

Lawmakers shouldn’t stand for this hypocrisy, regardless of political party. Tell them to speak up with our action center.

Apparently obstructing transparency at the federal level is no longer enough and the government now wants to meddle with municipal police departments’ responses to public records requests.

The new policy “drastically increases the likelihood the agency isn’t complying with the Federal Records Act,” FPF’s Lauren Harper told the Times.

Foreign war correspondents get “hostile environment training, security consultants, trauma counselors and legal teams. … Local newsrooms covering militarized federal operations in their own communities? Sometimes all we have is Google, group chats and each other.”

“It is outrageous that YouTube is furthering the Trump administration’s agenda to remove evidence of human rights violations and war crimes from public view,” said Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

It’s past time for cameras in courtrooms nationwide. None of the studies have ever substantiated whatever harms critics have claimed transparency would cause. Hopefully, the Kirk trial will make this a bipartisan issue.

“The government is attempting to lay a foundation for dissenting political beliefs as grounds for terrorism. And people like Ya’akub — non-white [or] non-Christian — have been made its primary examples. Both journalists; like Mario Guevara … and civilians.”

Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz convened yet another congressional hearing on Biden-era “jawboning” of Big Tech companies. The message: Government officials leaning on these multibillion-dollar conglomerates to influence the views they platform was akin to censorship. Officials may not have formally ordered the companies to self-censor, but they didn’t have to – businesspeople know it’s in their economic interests to stay on the administration’s good side.

They’re not entirely wrong. Public officials are entitled to express their opinions about private speech, but it’s a different story when they lead speakers to believe they have no choice but to appease the government. At the same time the Biden administration was making asks of social platforms, the former president and other Democrats (and Republicans) pushed for repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that allows social media to exist.

It’s unlikely that the Biden administration intended its rhetoric around Section 230 to intimidate social media platforms into censorship. That said, it’s certainly possible companies made content decisions they otherwise wouldn’t have when requested by a government looking to legislate them out of existence. It’s something worth exploring and learning from.

But if you accept the premise — as I do — that gigantic tech companies with billions in the bank and armies of lawyers are susceptible to soft pressure from a censorial government, doesn’t it go without saying that so are individual journalists who lack anything close to those resources?

If it’s jawboning when Biden officials suggest Facebook take down anti-vaccine posts, isn’t it “jawboning” when a North Carolina GOP official tells ProPublica to kill a story, touting connections to the Trump administration? When the president calls for reporters to be fired for doing basic journalism, like reporting on leaks? When the White House and Pentagon condition access on helping them further official narratives? A good-faith conversation about jawboning can’t just ignore all of that.

Here are some more incidents Cruz and his colleagues have not held hearings about:

• A Department of Homeland Security official publicly accused a Chicago Tribune reporter of “interference” for the act of reporting where immigration enforcement was occurring. Journalism, in the government’s telling, constituted obstruction of justice. That certainly could lead others to tread cautiously when exercising their constitutional right to document law enforcement actions.
• Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard attacked Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima by name, suggesting her reporting methods — which is to say, calling government officials — were improper and reflected a media establishment “desperate to sabotage POTUS’s successful agenda.” Might that dissuade reporters from seeking comment from sources, or sources from providing such comment to reporters?
• When a journalist suggested people contact her on the encrypted messaging app Signal, an adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said she should be banned from Pentagon coverage. The Pentagon then attempted to exclude her from Hegseth’s trip to Singapore. Putting aside the irony of Hegseth’s team taking issue with Signal usage, it’s fair to assume journalists are less likely to suggest sources lawfully contact them via secure technologies if doing so leads to government threats and retaliation.
• Bill Essayli, a U.S. attorney in California, publicly called a reporter “a joke, not a journalist” for commenting on law enforcement policies for shooting at moving vehicles. Obviously, remarks from prosecutors carry unique weight and have significant potential to chill speech, particularly when prosecutors make clear that they don’t view a journalist as worthy of the First Amendment’s protections for their profession.

Sources wanting to expose wrongdoing ... will think twice about talking to journalists who are known targets of an out-of-control administration.

There are plenty more examples — and that doesn’t even get into all the targeting of news outlets, from major broadcast networks to community radio stations. They may have more resources than individual reporters, but they’re nowhere near as well positioned to withstand a major spike in legal bills and insurance premiums as big social media firms (who this administration also jawbones to censor constitutionally protected content).

And hovering over all of this is President Donald Trump himself, whose social media feed doubles as an intimidation campaign against reporters. Our Trump Anti-Press Social Media Tracker documents hundreds of posts targeting not only news outlets but individual journalists. It’s documented over 3,500 posts. Unlike Biden-era “jawboning,” threats like these come from the very top — people in a position to actually carry them out. And unlike Biden’s administration, Trump’s track record makes the threat of government retribution real, not hypothetical.

Trump views excessive criticism of him as “probably illegal.” He has made very clear his desire for journalists to be imprisoned, sued for billions, and assaulted for reasons completely untethered to the Constitution, and has surrounded himself with bootlicking stooges eager to carry out his whims. “Chilling” is an understatement for the effect when a sitting president — particularly an authoritarian one — threatens journalists for doing their job.

It’s not only that these journalists don’t have the resources of Meta, Alphabet, and the like. They also have much more to lose. Tech companies might get some bad PR based on how they handle government takedown requests, but it’s unlikely to significantly impact their bottom line, particularly when news content comprises a small fraction of their business.

But journalists don’t just host news content, they create it. Their whole careers depend on their reputations and the willingness of sources to trust them. Sources wanting to expose wrongdoing, who often talk to journalists at great personal risk and try to keep a low profile, will think twice about talking to journalists who are known targets of an out-of-control administration.

Other news outlets might be reluctant to hire someone who has been singled out by the world’s most powerful person and his lackeys. Editors and publishers — already spooked about publishing articles that might draw a SLAPP suit or worse from Trump — will be doubly hesitant when the article is written by someone already on the administration’s public blacklist.

Unlike Biden’s antics, the Trump administration has cut out the middleman by directly targeting the speech and speakers it doesn’t like. And it wields this power against people with a fraction of the resources to fight back. If that’s not jawboning, what is?

Award-winning journalist Cerise Castle has some history with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. In 2021, she chronicled how deputies formed violent gangs within the department. She then turned “A Tradition of Violence,” her 15-part series for Knock LA, into a podcast by the same name.

Perhaps that’s why the department was spooked when Castle submitted a Public Records Act request for names and official ID photographs of all sworn personnel, “excluding those in undercover assignments.” Or maybe the department was merely committed to following its routine practice of delaying and denying records requests.

In any case, the department produced the names of about 8,500 deputies but refused to produce any photographs except of the sheriff and his undersheriffs. They claimed that producing photographs of the deputies would violate their right to privacy and might endanger them in the future, if they ever go undercover.

But the department’s rationale seemed suspect because it also refused to comply with separate requests for headshots of three deputies who have been convicted of serious felonies, fired, and obviously won’t be sent on any future undercover operations for the department.

Castle won her Los Angeles County Superior Court Public Records Act lawsuit in July, and the court ordered the department to release the deputy ID photographs. But now the county is appealing. Its objection to allowing the public to identify law enforcement officers is especially striking when Angelenos and others across the country are outraged by unidentified, masked federal immigration officers abducting their neighbors.

The timing is also particularly odd after the California Legislature just enacted Sen. Scott Wiener’s new law, the No Secret Police Act, barring law enforcement officers operating in the state from masking their faces when working in public, beginning on Jan. 1, 2026.

We spoke to Castle’s lawyer, Susan Seager, to learn more about the case and her client’s opposition to the county’s appeal.

What is the county’s basis for its opposition to producing pictures of law enforcement officers who operate in public and serve the public at the public’s expense?

They claim that no deputy will ever work undercover again because if a deputy’s photo is posted online, and if that deputy works undercover in the future, and if a “criminal” uses facial recognition technology, then that future undercover deputy will be recognized by criminals. But the court rejected this argument because it’s all speculation. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant followed decisions by the California Supreme Court, such as Commission on Peace Officer Certification Standards and Training v. Superior Court, which held that ordinary police officers don’t have a right to privacy in their identities and mere “speculation” about safety risks to the general police force is not enough to block disclosure of public records containing individual police officers’ identities.

The top brass at the LA Sheriff’s Department don’t want their deputies to be accountable to the public they serve. The Sheriff’s Department fights all Public Records Act cases. It’s a knee-jerk reaction.

Have similar arguments been rejected by the courts before?

No. As far as I know, this is the first case where a court decided that official police department officer ID photos are disclosable under the Public Records Act. The city of LA and city of Santa Ana both voluntarily gave journalist Ben Camacho official police officer ID photos in response to his Public Records Act legal actions, but they did so before a court ruled on his request. The LAPD photos are now online for public use at Watch the Watchers.

It seems notable that LA County is pursuing this appeal so soon after the city of Los Angeles wasted its time and the taxpayers’ money, and embarrassed itself in the Camacho case. Why is the county repeating the city’s mistakes?

The problem is that both the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council appear to be very hands-off on the litigation against them, including cases involving their sheriff’s department and police department, respectively. The elected officials seem to let their lawyers make all the decisions on litigation strategies, appeals, etc., without asking for any updates or to be involved in any decisions to appeal in cases against the government agencies. LA’s elected officials need to take more control over litigation involving their police officers. They need to stop wasting taxpayer money fighting Public Records Act cases like this, especially after a superior court orders the police agency to release the records.

Many people in Los Angeles and around the country have been outraged in recent months by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents wearing masks, and other efforts by the Trump administration to discourage and even criminalize identifying law enforcement officers. What do you make of LA County litigating the right to keep deputies’ identities secret against that backdrop?

LA deputies probably wish they could wear masks as well. And the top brass at the LA Sheriff’s Department don’t want their deputies to be accountable to the public they serve. The Sheriff’s Department fights all Public Records Act cases. It’s a knee-jerk reaction. And the lawyers hired by the county don’t care about public accountability — they are hired to fight and win.

What’s your theory about why the county is pursuing this? Where is the pressure coming from? Do they seriously believe that this is a meritorious appeal that they have a real chance of winning? Or do they just not care because taxpayers are funding it?

This is typical for the county of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. They fight all Public Records Act cases. In this case, there is extra pressure coming from the labor unions representing the deputies. The deputies’ labor unions actually joined in the case as intervenors, so we are fighting against the county and the labor unions.

If journalists are not able to obtain photos of law enforcement officers through public records requests, what kind of reporting will the public lose out on?

In the age of everyone carrying a smartphone and filming police, and posting images of police on social media or news sites, the public and the press can use those images to identify officers and investigate their past history. There may be instances where deputies use excessive force or threaten members of the public, but the victim doesn’t know the name of the deputy. Photographs help identify officers.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s been 220 days since Rümeysa Öztürk was arrested for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like. Read on for news from California, Washington D.C. and Maryland as the government shutdown drags on.

Public records are for the public

When Wired made public records-based stories free, subscriptions went up.

When 404 Media published reporting that relied on the Freedom of Information Act without a paywall, new sources came forward.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) spoke to Wired Global Editorial Director and FPF board member Katie Drummond and 404 Media co-founder Joseph Cox about why giving the public access to public records reporting is good for journalism — and for business. Read more here.

Shutting down the government doesn’t shut down the First Amendment

It’s absurd and unconstitutional to exclude reporters from immigration hearings unless they get government permission to attend, especially when it’s impossible to obtain permission due to the government shutdown, and particularly when the current government despises First Amendment freedoms and will use any opportunity to evade transparency.

And yet that’s exactly what an immigration court in Maryland did this week. We wrote a detailed letter to the top judge at the courthouse explaining why they need to reverse course, both to comply with the law and for the sake of democracy. The next day, Capital News Service reported that the court had backed down and lifted the ban. Read the letter here.

No secret police in LA

Award-winning journalist Cerise Castle sued Los Angeles County in July and obtained a court order for the department to release the sheriff’s deputy ID photographs.

But now the county is appealing. Its objection to allowing the public to identify law enforcement officers is especially striking when Angelenos and others across the country are outraged by unidentified, masked federal immigration officers abducting their neighbors. It also comes on the heels of the city of Los Angeles embarrassing itself with its failed effort to sue a journalist for publishing officer photographs.

We connected with Castle’s lawyer, Susan Seager, to try to figure out what the department is thinking. Read more here.

Top three questions about the White House ballroom

FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper has lots of questions about the demolition of a section of the White House to construct a ballroom.

She wrote about three of them for our government secrecy site, The Classifieds: (1) Is there a budget? (2) Who are the donors, and what do they get in return? and (3) Where should we look for answers about what’s going on at the East Wing? Read more here.

A retired U.S. colonel has gone public with his concern that the Biden administration’s findings about the 2022 killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by the Israeli military were “soft-pedaled to appease Israel.” There has been “a miscarriage of justice,” he says.

The detention of Sami Hamdi by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement solely for his views while on a speaking tour in the U.S. is a blatant assault on free speech. These are the tactics of the thought police.

“As the press becomes more subservient and less independent, the firsthand knowledge needed to even stage a fight to get our mojo back is a whisper in the ether,” writes Brian Karem. That’s why veteran journalists who know how abnormal this all is need to be extra vocal these days.

It’s no time for gatekeeping. There aren’t enough traditional J-School trained journalists to adequately document every ICE abduction – let alone everything else going on. We appreciate everyone who is exercising their press freedom rights, no matter how they’re categorized.

When Wired published the contents of 911 calls coming from inside Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, revealing shocking reports of overcrowding and sexual assault, the story wasn’t just harrowing. It was also freely available to anyone who wanted to read it.

And when 404 Media reported that law enforcement agents were tapping into a nationwide network of license plate readers — including one Texas officer who used the system to track a woman who’d self-administered an abortion — it made sure the news story and every record it was based on were unpaywalled.

Wired and 404 Media are two of the news organizations leading the way in removing paywalls for public records-based reporting. Recently, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) sat down with Katie Drummond, global editorial director of Wired and an FPF board member; Joseph Cox, co-founder of 404 Media; and FPF’s Lauren Harper to discuss why reporting based on public records should be free.

Drummond, Cox, and Harper described how unpaywalling reporting based on records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act or other public records laws not only serves democracy but also strengthens journalism itself.

‘A very valuable public service’

For both Wired and 404 Media, the reasons for removing paywalls for public records-based reporting are self-evident.

“It’s a very valuable public service to make people aware of what tools and tactics are being deployed to monitor and surveil people,” said Drummond, speaking about some of Wired’s public records reporting. “They should know what’s sort of happening that they may not be aware of, and to be able, again, to make that available to our audience without a paywall is important.”

Similarly, Cox described how reporting based on public records can lead to real-world reforms, especially when it’s widely available to the public and lawmakers. For instance, 404 Media’s reporting on Flock Safety, the license plate reader company, didn’t just expose surveillance abuses. It also caused Flock to make “radical changes to its product” and triggered congressional investigations, Cox said.

Additionally, by making the reporting and records about Flock freely available, 404 Media helped other journalists. The free access “created this sort of wave of local media coverage where now local journalists are doing basically the same public records request, but for their own communities or towns or cities,” Cox said.

Free access to public records-based reporting at 404 Media “created this sort of wave of local media coverage where now local journalists are doing basically the same public records request, but for their own communities or towns or cities.”

Flagging new sources for future reporting

Free access to public records-based reporting also builds trust and relationships with readers and sources.

“There’s just something about being able to have a government document,” Cox said. “It’s real. You got it from the government through a FOIA request, or a lawsuit, or whatever, and you can then show that to readers. We don’t want to get in the way of that.”

Making this reporting and the records it’s based on free can also draw the attention of important sources for future reporting. Cox described how his reporting based on FOIA requests sends a signal to readers and sources that he’s interested in particular companies or topics.

Sources reading the free articles realize, Cox said, “‘Oh, this journalist is interested in Flock, in Palantir, or whatever it might be.’ And then, lo and behold, because we make it so easy for potential sources to reach us securely, on Signal or through other methods, we’ll probably end up getting a leak from one of those companies as well.”

Harper, who often writes about her FOIA requests for FPF, shared how publishing FOIA work openly can attract new sources and deepen reporting. “The more obvious I make my FOIA work, the more feedback I get from folks” about what to file future FOIA requests for, she explained.

That kind of transparency fuels better journalism, she said. “It is a virtuous cycle. The more we talk about and advertise FOIA, the better our FOIA requests become as a result.”

The economics of openness

Yet, the public records reporting that Wired and 404 Media have made freely available isn’t free to produce. Both news outlets rely on subscriptions and paywalls to fund their journalism.

As Drummond explained, “The FOIA process can often be labor-intensive, resource-intensive, time-consuming — all of the things that would increase your incentive to put a paywall up on that work,” she said.

But both Wired and 404 Media have found that removing paywalls for public records-based reporting is actually the better decision, financially.

“We made a calculated bet that our audience would show up for us when we did this,” Drummond said. “That bet paid off above and beyond what I could have possibly imagined.”

“That bet paid off above and beyond what I could have possibly imagined.”

After Wired announced it would unpaywall its public records-based stories, Drummond said it saw a “huge increase in subscribers” and received “hundreds of emails from people thanking us for doing it.” Far from hurting the bottom line, she said, “It has been additive to the business rather than taking anything away, from a financial point of view.”

For Cox, the same principle holds true: Transparency drives reader trust, and trust drives support. Every FOIA-based story on 404 Media’s website includes a short note explaining that it’s free but inviting readers to support the outlet’s work through a subscription or one-time donation.

“Look, we’re trying to run a business,” Cox said. “But we’re in it for the journalism. That’s literally why we wake up every single morning, to go write articles and put them on the internet.” He added, “And it does pay off, I think, journalistically, ethically, and businesswise as well.”

‘It’s very hard for me to think of a compelling reason not to do this’

If public records laws like FOIA are tools for public accountability, then journalism that relies on them should be public too. Simply put, “Public records belong to the public,” as Harper said. In a moment when the public’s access to government information is being increasingly curtailed, Wired and 404 Media are proving that openness isn’t just ethical — it’s effective.

Other news outlets should follow their lead. “It is of tremendous value for your audience,” said Drummond. “It’s very hard for me to think of a compelling reason not to do this.”

Cox echoed the sentiment: “There’s a public interest in getting those documents in front of more people. And there is, maybe counterintuitively, but there definitely is, a business benefit to it as well.”

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s been 213 days since Rümeysa Öztürk was arrested for co-writing an op-ed. Read on for news from Illinois and California, and tips on how to limit exposing your location.

Rights remain under attack by immigration officers

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) is helping communities in California and Illinois fight back against attacks on the press during the recent immigration crackdowns. Our deputy director of advocacy, Adam Rose, joined the American Constitution Society, the Center for Media and Democracy, and Common Cause for a briefing about federal immigration officers’ recent attacks on the press, as well as efforts to fight back in court in both Chicago, Illinois, and Los Angeles, California. Journalists in both cities were able to obtain court injunctions ordering law enforcement to stop targeting the press. Rose is also the press freedom chair for the Los Angeles Press Club, one of the plaintiffs in the LA court case.

Unfortunately, those orders have not stopped U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s rampage against the First Amendment. Rose cited repeated violations of journalists’ rights during “No Kings” protests in LA this weekend, even after LA’s city council ordered lawyers to withdraw a ridiculous motion seeking to lift the injunction.

And yesterday, the Chicago plaintiffs filed a notice with the court that agents violated the order by assaulting and attempting to seize a phone from a bystander exercising her right to record their operations. Another notice flags video of top Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino tossing a tear gas canister into a crowd as if he’s throwing out a ceremonial first pitch. These are just a couple of several violations they’ve raised with the court.

Watch the panel here.

Help us fight for private prison transparency

ICE’s network of for-profit detention facilities is expanding rapidly under the Trump administration. Even though these private facilities hold human beings in federal custody under federal law, they operate in secret and are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. That needs to change.

Use our action center to tell your member of Congress that FOIA should apply to private facilities. And for more on FOIA — particularly, how to use it during a government shutdown — read the latest issue of our secrecy newsletter, The Classifieds.

Write to your member of Congress here.

Deported journalist speaks out from El Salvador

Earlier this month, the Trump administration deported journalist Mario Guevara following his June arrest while livestreaming a protest. The government proceeded with the deportation despite Guevara’s work permit and even though the baseless charges against him were dropped, arguing that his livestreaming law enforcement presents a “safety threat.”

This week, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of FPF, interviewed Guevara from El Salvador. “It’s not the way I want to come back to my country — deported like a criminal,” he told the Tracker’s Briana Erickson. “I was frustrated, but until the last minute, I still had the hope to stay in the United States because I believe in the justice of the country.

“I was the first one, but I don’t think I will be the only one,” he added.

Watch the interview here.

How to limit exposing your location

Not every journalist needs to worry about location tracking — but when it matters, it really matters.

Our digital security team’s latest guide helps you assess when location tracking risks apply to your work — and what steps you can take to mitigate those risks when they do. Read it here.

Upcoming events

Oct. 29: FPF’s Caitlin Vogus will join an online panel of experts to break down how the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission are targeting journalists and the First Amendment, and how to fight back. Register here for the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Future of Speech Online 2025, “Working the Refs” panel on Oct. 29 at 12:10 p.m. EDT.

That same day, join us for a conversation about making public records-based reporting free, featuring Vogus as well as our Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper, in conversation with leadership at Wired and 404 Media, including Wired Global Editorial Director and FPF board member Katie Drummond. The event starts at 2 p.m. EDT; RSVP on Zoom here.

Oct. 30: Join an online discussion on Oct. 30 at 1 p.m. EDT about digital safety and legal rights for journalists reporting on immigration in the U.S., featuring FPF Director of Digital Security Harlo Holmes and several other experts from the U.S. Journalist Assistance Network. Register here.

The Pentagon’s demand that reporters surrender their right to publish news in exchange for access to press conferences is “a classic case of unconstitutional prior restraint,” FPF’s Seth Stern told CJR.

Yes, deleting those texts was a crime, but this reminds us of prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion. The former police chief has done a lot worse, like illegally raiding the Marion County Record’s newsroom and its publisher’s home, likely resulting in co-owner Joan Meyer’s death.

Carlitos Ricardo Parias, who documented immigration raids, was shot during an altercation with immigration officers and is now in federal custody. FPF’s Rose explained to the Los Angeles Times that the First Amendment protects everyone’s right to record law enforcement, from journalists to cop watchers.

We shouldn’t have to guess what the law is. The Justice Department must release its memo authorizing these deadly strikes.

Censorship is bad for America and bad for business. When companies stifle free expression, customers will take their money elsewhere.

As protesters paint signs for another round of “No Kings” demonstrations this Saturday, journalists are getting ready in their own way: Charging camera batteries, notifying emergency contacts, and rinsing old tear gas off their shatter-resistant goggles.

At similar events since June, well over a hundred journalists have been injured, detained, or arrested by police. Now two cities — Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois — are expecting their largest protests since federal judges issued multiple rulings exempting the press from general dispersal orders and restricting law enforcement use of “less lethal” munitions.

Those are big wins on paper, but only if you know how to use them.

The law exists in two separate but unequal places: the court and the street. And you’ll never win a philosophical argument on a skirmish line.

Sure, you’re probably right. You’re armed with the First Amendment. But the average police officer is armed with a baton, handcuffs, body armor, tear gas, and at least a couple of guns. They may also be tired, overwhelmed, hungry, and see you standing between them and a bathroom break.

As they’ve been known to say, “You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.”

It’s no longer “Listen to me,” it’s ideally “Here’s a signed order from your boss.”

Covering a protest, an immigration raid, or an immigration hearing is no place to give up your rights. Instead, you can learn to invoke them more effectively.

The press is one of two professions (alongside religious practitioners) distinguished by its constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Policing is the opposite, marked by rigid command structure and a sworn duty to enforce very specific codes and regulations.

But cops are supposed to be trained and held accountable by their department. They shouldn’t need reminding of the law they’re supposed to uphold. And it’s not the job of journalists to train them.

As professional communicators, journalists may find it more productive to translate conversations into the language of law enforcement.

For example, in California, it won’t get you very far to tell an officer you’re exempt from dispersal orders thanks to “Senate Bill 98.” You might be talking to a kid fresh out of the police academy or a detective pulled off desk duty to earn overtime. They have no idea what passed the statehouse four years ago. At best, they’re trained to speak in terms of “penal code.” Mentioning “Penal Code 409.7,” the statute established by that bill, might be your better ticket out of handcuffs. (This state law only applies to local law enforcement, not to federal operations like Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other Department of Homeland Security agencies.)

For journalists in the Chicago and Los Angeles areas, recent court rulings, including one for the LA Press Club in which I’m a plaintiff, have made things much clearer. Ideally you don’t need to print out 80 pages of preliminary injunctions. An officer will likely ignore that anyway, figuring it’s up to department lawyers to interpret. Instead, try to print the version of orders their boss(’s boss’s boss) was required to issue. The following list of PDFs are being updated as those materials are released by each agency, so use your judgment and print what might be applicable to your situation.

• Chicago-area temporary restraining order (Northern District of Illinois) (10/17/25)
  • As each DHS subsidiary agency provided their own cover sheet to personnel, it may be useful to print each of the following.
  • Federal Protective Service cover sheet
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement cover sheet
  • Customs and Border Patrol cover sheet
  • Department of Justice cover sheet
• Los Angeles Police Department’s “Chief’s Notice” to all personnel (7/15/25)
  • This is an earlier version based on an initial TRO. It will be updated with a newer version based on a more recent preliminary injunction, which is even more favorable to press.
• LA-area preliminary injunction (Central District of California) (9/10/25)
  • DHS has not shared details on how this order was distributed. As a longer document, you may wish to only print the cover page along with pages 43 to 45, which contain the injunction itself.

This puts things in law enforcement terms — from the top of their command structure. It’s no longer “Listen to me,” it’s ideally “Here’s a signed order from your boss.”

You want a printed copy, since your phone could run out of battery, be lost, or shatter. And it’s never a good idea to hand your unlocked phone to police. Also, if you need to pull out these orders (or a press pass), state clearly what you’re reaching for before placing your hand in a pocket or bag. Officers don’t love those sorts of unannounced movements.

A piece of paper isn’t much of a shield from a raging officer swinging a baton and screaming, “Leave the area.” But if you can engage with them, you want to ensure the precious few words that they hear will resonate. And it bears repeating: Everyone has a boss.

Protests involve a lot of turnover on the front line, so you may never see the same officer twice. If possible, communicate early and often. Ask to meet a supervisor or public information officer during a calm moment, and get their name so you can ask for them if you have trouble later on.

Unfortunately, even a signed order from the chief isn’t always a “get out of jail free” card. After a temporary restraining order was issued against the LAPD this summer, officers still put several journalists in zip ties during a protest. Two lawyers who had won the TRO showed up with a copy of official paperwork instructing officers to leave press alone. After they handed it to the incident commander, police still drove two photojournalists away in the back of a squad car.

The LAPD later suggested those photographers were ”pretending to be media.” The pair’s credits include The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Business Insider, The Washington Post, New York Magazine, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, and even a cover for Time magazine.

A federal judge later wrote of the LAPD, “The Court expresses no approval for this conduct. To the contrary, the evidence presented is disturbing and, at the very least, shows that Defendants violated the spirit if not the letter of the Court’s initial restraining order.”

Of course, the photojournalists beat the rap. But they didn’t beat the ride.

Attending a protest outside of LA or Chicago? You still have First Amendment rights, even if you don’t have a court order. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has been investigating and documenting serious violations in cities from New York to Portland, Oregon. If you experience or witness law enforcement violating press rights anywhere in the country, please send us tips and any available evidence to tips@pressfreedomtracker.us.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s been two weeks since Atlanta journalist Mario Guevara was deported and 207 days since Rümeysa Öztürk was arrested for co-writing an op-ed. Read on for more about this weekend’s planned protests, actions you can take to protect journalists, and events you can catch us at this month.

When the law’s on your side but ICE doesn’t care

As protesters paint signs for another round of “No Kings” demonstrations this Saturday, journalists are getting ready in their own way: charging camera batteries, notifying emergency contacts, and rinsing old tear gas residue off their shatter-resistant goggles.

Two cities — Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois — are expecting their largest protests since federal judges issued multiple rulings exempting the press from general dispersal orders and restricting law enforcement’s use of “less lethal” munitions.

Those are big wins for journalists, but only if they know how to use them. Our new deputy director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), Adam Rose, wrote about how journalists can prepare for the weekend. Read more here.

Administration ignores flotilla abuses

Three U.S. journalists have been abducted from aid flotillas bound for Gaza and detained by Israel. All three reported experiencing or witnessing abuse and even torture.

Photojournalist Noa Avishag Schnall recalled, “I was hung from the metal shackles on my wrists and ankles and beaten in the stomach, back, face, ear and skull by a group of men and women guards, one of whom sat on my neck and face, blocking my airways … Our cell was awoken with threats of rape.”

Jewish Currents reporter Emily Wilder said she “announced … ‘I’m a journalist, I’m press.’ The woman to my left hissed, ‘We don’t give a fuck,’ and the other dug her nails into my scalp and pulled me by my hair across the port.”

In normal times, this would be a major scandal. We joined Defending Rights & Dissent and others in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio explaining what should be obvious — the U.S. shouldn’t sit silently as its ally assaults its journalists. Read it here.

First rule of Qatari jets? Don’t talk about Qatari jets

We sued the Trump administration for refusing to share its legal rationale for approving the president’s acceptance of a $400 million jet from the Qatari government, despite the Constitution saying he can’t do that. Now the administration wants to strike our complaint, claiming the background discussion of the gifted jet is “impertinent” and “scandalous.”

That’s rich, especially weeks after the president’s frivolous defamation lawsuit against The New York Times got dismissed for rambling on about how he was once on WrestleMania and “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” (he’s since filed an amended complaint).

Read about our response.

Public records expert: ‘We can do better’

If fewer newspapers exist to request public records, does the government become less transparent? That’s the question at the heart of “Dark Deserts,” a new research paper by David Cuillier of the Freedom of Information Project at the Brechner Center for Advancement of the First Amendment and law student Brett Posner-Ferdman.

Cuillier told us about what he and Posner-Ferdman found and what it means for the public’s right to know. Read the interview here.

Standing with student journalists

Last week we told you about the lawsuit filed by The Stanford Daily to stop the Trump administration’s unconstitutional and appalling push to deport foreign students who say or write things it doesn’t like.

This week we joined the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the First Amendment Coalition, and others in a legal brief in support of that important lawsuit.

Read it here.

Congressional secrecy bill advances

The Senate passed Sens. Ted Cruz and Amy Klobuchar’s bill to protect themselves — but not you — from data broker abuses and otherwise allow federal lawmakers to censor the internet.

FPF’s Caitlin Vogus wrote for The Dallas Morning News about how the bill threatens journalism — for example, by stifling reporting on its co-sponsor vacationing while his constituents endure natural disasters. Read more here.

Tell the House to kill the bill.

Journalists told The Guardian, “the restrictions won’t stop the work, with some even saying they plan to take a more aggressive tack.” Good. The policy is highly unconstitutional, but it’s an opportunity to omit Pentagon lies and spin from reporting.

Rose, who is also press rights chair for the LA Press Club, said that “Instead of holding the department accountable, the city is spending even more money to hire an outside law firm so they can effectively beg a judge for permission to keep assaulting journalists for just doing their job.”

So much for Facebook’s renewed commitment to free speech. And so much for this administration’s condemnation of social media censorship.

A federal court blocked a ridiculous law that banned almost all speech on public college campuses in Texas at night, including student journalism. As we explained in the Houston Chronicle, free speech does not have a curfew.

Upcoming FPF events

Oct. 22: Join FPF’s Adam Rose and others on Oct. 22 at 3 p.m. EDT for an online conversation hosted by the American Constitution Society about the impact of federal law enforcement violence on your First Amendment rights. Register here.

Oct. 24: If you’re in Chicago and fortunate enough to not have to hide from ICE invaders, come to Northwestern for a panel on Oct. 24 at 10 a.m. CT featuring FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern. We’ll discuss the numerous digital and physical challenges journalists are facing. Register here.

Oct. 29: FPF’s Caitlin Vogus will join an online panel of experts to break down how the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission are targeting journalists and the First Amendment and how to fight back. Register here for the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Future of Speech 2025, “Working the Refs” panel on Oct. 29 at 12:10 p.m. EDT.

That same day, join us for a conversation about making public records-based reporting free, featuring Vogus as well as our Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper, in conversation with leadership at Wired and 404 Media, including Wired global editorial director and FPF board member Katie Drummond. The event starts at 2 p.m. EDT; RSVP on Zoom here.

Oct. 30: Join an online discussion on Oct. 30 at 1 p.m. EDT about digital safety and legal rights for journalists reporting on immigration in the U.S., featuring FPF Director of Digital Security Harlo Holmes and several other experts from the U.S. Journalist Assistance Network. Register here.

If fewer newspapers exist to request public records, does the government become less transparent? That’s the question at the heart of “Dark Deserts,” a new research paper by David Cuillier of the Freedom of Information Project at the Brechner Center for Advancement of the First Amendment and law student Brett Posner-Ferdman.

Cuillier, who’s taught more than 10,000 journalists, students, and citizens how to wrest public records from government agencies, told us about what he and Posner-Ferdman found and what it means for the public’s right to know.

Let’s start with the big finding of “Dark Deserts”: States with fewer local papers and weaker press associations are more likely to break public records laws. Why does that matter for everyday people?

This is incredibly important for all of us because we are reaching the transparency tipping point — where we will lose any effective ability to see what our governments are up to.

We know from research that public record laws directly lead to less corruption, cleaner drinking water, and safer restaurants. According to Stanford economist James Hamilton’s research, for every dollar spent on public records journalism, society benefits $287 in saved lives and more efficient government. Freedom of information ensures concrete benefits for all of us.

Yet, we are losing it very quickly. According to the Department of Justice’s own statistics, if you asked for a record in 2011, you would get it about 38% of the time. Now it’s down to 12%. We see the same downward trends in the states. What happens when it gets to 0%?

The death of transparency will affect all of us in the pocketbook, in the quality of government services we receive, and in the loss of liberties we hold sacred as Americans.

The death of transparency will affect all of us in the pocketbook, in the quality of government services we receive, and in the loss of liberties we hold sacred as Americans.

Surprisingly, you found that having more digital-only media outlets doesn’t result in better public records request compliance. Why do you think that is, and what advice would you give to digital outlets trying to hold government accountable?

It is difficult to know for sure. For one, there aren’t as many data points to effectively measure their effects as well as we would like. For example, the Institute for Nonprofit News membership stands at about 500 so far and there are 3,143 counties in the country. A strong, local, independent digital outlet might have an effect on local compliance with public record laws, but there probably aren’t enough to have an impact on state agencies.

Also, while many are doing great work, I suspect they have less influence at a statewide level than newspapers. A lot of digital-only outlets don’t have the funds to sue for public records. Also, my sense is that government officials don’t take digital-only media outlets as seriously, and that politicians are essentially blowing them off and not considering them “real” journalism. That is too bad, because many are doing better journalism than legacy media.

Digital-only outlets will need to double down on public records. And support organizations like Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, MuckRock, state FOI coalitions, and others can help.

Beyond subscribing to their community’s newspaper or supporting funding for journalism, what can people who care about press freedom and transparency do to encourage state governments to take their public record laws seriously?

Of course, write to your local city council, legislator, governor, and congressional representatives. They listen if enough people speak up. But everyone says that, right? And how many people actually act?

The solutions will take much more work than strongly worded letters. It’s time for other institutions to fill the gap. Nonprofits with an agenda are probably our last hope — American Oversight, Heritage Foundation, Judicial Watch, ACLU, League of Women Voters, etc. A new citizen-driven nonprofit in Jacksonville, “Nassau County DOGE,” has been pushing for public records. Environmental groups and those seeking police reform and rights for transgender Americans are pushing for records. Whatever your passion is, join an organization that will fight for your right to know.

The solutions will take much more work than strongly worded letters. It’s time for other institutions to fill the gap.

Then, we need strong coordinating bodies, such as state freedom of information coalitions, to help direct these energies toward real legislative reform and litigation. One thing I’ve noticed is that all it takes is one or two passionate people in a state to make a huge difference in freedom of information. It really is doable!

What states have the strongest public records law, and what sets them apart? If you had the power to rewrite public records laws, what’s the one thing you’d add or fix right away?

No state is perfect. But most of the studies indicate that the states with the best compliance overall with public record laws tend to be Washington, Idaho, Connecticut, and some others. The most effective changes to public records laws rely on four things.

First, we need mandatory attorney fee-shifting in every state, where agencies are required to cover the attorney fees of people who sue for public records and prevail. In the third of the states that have this, there are attorneys happy to sue on behalf of journalists and others, with the hope they will get paid.

Second, strong financial penalties for noncompliance are critically important. Washington is probably the most transparent state overall, because if an agency breaks the law, is sued, and loses, it can be forced to pay up to $100 per record per day that it dinged the requester around. That can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Third, elimination of search and redaction fees, which are abused terribly. There are some countries where no fees are charged at all, and it works very well. In reality, fees collect very little of the actual cost of administering public record laws — less than 1%-3% according to most studies. Yet, they are wielded by agencies to make people go away, particularly journalists.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, we need alternative enforcement mechanisms in addition to court. Not everyone can afford to hire an attorney and sue. We need independent information commissions in every state to enforce the law and punish bad agencies, as they have in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and in more than 51 nations across the planet.

You’re also a member of the federal Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee. What’s something you’d fix in the federal FOIA?

So many fixes, so little time.

The FOIA Advisory Committee, since its inception in 2014, has provided 67 recommendations to improve the law and process, yet the most substantive suggestions have mostly been ignored. Amendments every decade or so tweak the law but are insufficient in keeping up with increasing secrecy.

I’ve noticed that in Washington, D.C., there tends to be a culture of exceptionalism, that we are the king of democracy in the world and have the best law on the books. In reality, FOIA’s strength on paper is rated in the bottom half of the 140 nations that have public record laws — 78th, to be exact. That is embarrassing. So many improvements could be made if we swallow our pride and look to other countries for guidance.

FOIA’s strength on paper is rated in the bottom half of the 140 nations that have public record laws — 78th, to be exact. That is embarrassing.

For example, we need an independent agency with the power to enforce the law on behalf of citizens, like we see in dozens of other countries. We need stiff penalties — even firing and jail time — for intentional noncompliance of FOIA, as they have in Ghana, Barbuda, and Finland. We need direct funding of FOIA offices by Congress to carry out the FOIA mission, particularly now as agencies are gutting staff. We need better technology to search for records and redact. We need FOIA to be applied to all branches of government, and to private corporations that conduct taxpayer-funded business on behalf of the government, as in South Africa, Armenia, and Colombia.

A lot of people consider these ideas extreme, yet they are common in other countries. We can do better.

Press freedom wins in Chicago court, but fight continues

Chicago journalists won a big First Amendment victory Oct. 9, when a federal court temporarily curbed federal officers’ abuses at protests. But the fight isn’t over.

The order still allows officers to potentially remove journalists along with protesters, a serious threat to press freedom that must be fixed.

We also can’t rely on courts alone. Local officials must step up, especially to protect independent journalists, who’ve been the main targets of these violations.

That’s why Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) led a coalition letter urging the Broadview, Illinois, Police Department and Illinois State Police to investigate attacks on independent journalists covering protests.

Read more about the order here.

Strengthen presidential library transparency

A segment on “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” about corruption and secrecy surrounding presidential libraries cited FPF’s Lauren Harper, who has been warning about Trump’s purported library since before his inauguration.

Oliver is right. Secret donations to presidential libraries enable bribery, while public access to presidential records is at an all-time low. Use our action center tool to tell Congress to close the secrecy loopholes and increase transparency.

Write to your lawmakers here.

Army lawyer thinks journalists are stenographers

The Pentagon attempted to walk back its policy restricting reporters from publishing news the government doesn’t authorize. But the revised policy is still a nonstarter to which no journalist should agree.

Meanwhile, a nominee for general counsel for the Department of the Army, Charles L. Young III, effectively endorsed the unconstitutional restrictions during a Senate hearing this week, opining that the First Amendment authorizes the government to punish journalists for publishing information that it did not approve for public release.

That’s disqualifying. A journalist’s job isn’t to keep the government’s secrets. It’s to report news the government does not want reported.

Tell Congress to reject Young’s nomination.

State Department must stand up for journalists detained on flotillas

Israel continues to hold American journalists captured in international waters aboard aid flotillas. The latest are Jewish Currents reporter Emily Wilder and Drop Site News reporter Noa Avishag Schnall. Previously, Israel detained Drop Site News reporter Alex Colston, who has said he and other detainees were abused and denied medical care.

But the State Department is doing little if anything about these detainments, presumably because the journalists in question don’t agree with the administration’s policies. Lawmakers need to raise their voices and pressure the administration to do more.

Write to your member of Congress here.

Student journalists fight Trump’s anti-speech deportations

It’s not every day a student newspaper takes on the federal government. But that’s exactly what The Stanford Daily is doing.

The Daily sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem in August over the Trump administration’s push to deport foreign students for exercising free speech, like writing op-eds and attending protests.

We spoke at the start of Stanford University’s fall term with Editor-in-Chief Greta Reich about why the Daily is fighting back. Read more here.

It’s time to end the SEC gag rule

We’ve written before about the unconstitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s “gag rule,” which bars those who settle with the SEC from talking to reporters, to protect the SEC’s reputation.

We shouldn’t need to say this, but the government doesn’t get to censor its critics to make itself look good. Last week, we filed a legal brief explaining to a federal appellate court why the ridiculous rule must be struck down. Read the brief here.

What we’re reading

ICE goes masked for a single reason (The New York Times). FPF’s Adam Rose tells the Times that immigration officers “seem to feel they can just willy-nilly shoot tear gas canisters at people and shoot them with foam rounds that can permanently maim people.”

The New York Times wins right to obtain info Musk wanted kept private (The New Republic). A court ruled that the public’s interest in knowing if Elon Musk has a security clearance and access to classified information outweighs any potential privacy interests.

Press Freedom Partnership newsletter (The Washington Post). “Journalists who are considering covering the story are going to think twice about it and stay home because they don’t want to be jailed and shot. It’s a major problem,” we told the Post about law enforcement targeting journalists covering anti-deportation protests in and around Chicago.

Journalism has become more challenging, for reporters and sources (Sentient). Sources have backed out of news stories — even seemingly uncontroversial ones — out of fear of being targeted by the Trump administration.

MAGA slams ‘fake news’ but embraces ‘The Benny Show’s’ misinformation (Straight Arrow News). “Plenty of past presidents would have loved to exclude serious journalists … and bring in the Benny Johnsons of their time. They just were under the impression that the public wouldn’t tolerate that,” we told Straight Arrow News. Now it’s up to the public to prove those past presidents right and the current one wrong.

A federal judge just reminded the government that the First Amendment still applies in Chicago.

On Oct. 9, Chicago journalists and protesters scored a major legal win, when Judge Sara Ellis issued a temporary restraining order reigning in federal officers’ repeated First Amendment violations at protests.

It’s a big victory for press freedom. The order prohibits arrests and use of physical force against journalists and restricts the use of dangerous crowd-control munitions. It defines “journalists” broadly, in a way that includes independent, freelance, and student reporters. It also enhances transparency by requiring federal officers to wear “visible identification,” like a unique serial number.

This order and similar rulings in Los Angeles last month are powerful reminders that journalists working together can vindicate their rights in the courts. They also highlight the crucial role that independent journalists and smaller news organizations play in defending press freedom. In both Chicago and Los Angeles, it’s been freelancers, community news outlets, local press clubs, and unions who’ve taken the lead, teaming up with protesters, legal observers, and clergy to take the government to court.

Unconstitutional dispersals of press still possible

But the fight isn’t over. The Chicago order unfortunately leaves open the possibility that, at least in some instances, federal officers may order journalists to leave areas where protests are being broken up or officers are attacking protesters.

Although the order prohibits dispersal of journalists from protests as a general matter, it also states that officers can “order” journalists to “change location to avoid disrupting law enforcement,” as long as they have “an objectively reasonable time to comply and an objectively reasonable opportunity to report and observe.” (In contrast, a similar order in Los Angeles states only that federal officers may “ask” journalists to change location.)

Federal officers are likely to use this as a loophole to continue to violently remove the press from protests, on the pretext that it’s necessary to avoid disruption. The order’s requirement that press must be able to continue to report and observe is also too lax; far better would have been an order specifically requiring that press be able to continue to see and hear the protest and law enforcement response.

Even when police can disperse protesters who break the law, the First Amendment doesn’t allow them to disperse journalists, too.

The weaker language around dispersals of journalists in the court’s order is a shame, especially for the public’s right to know. In recent days, Chicago journalists have been reporting about the violent tactics used by federal agents to disperse protests. If journalists can be ordered to leave alongside protesters, they can’t observe what’s happening or capture the images they need to keep the public informed.

It also makes dispersals more dangerous for protesters. As Unraveled Press noted, “Again and again, we’ve seen cops are most likely to get more violent with demonstrators when out of public view.” (Unraveled Press co-founder Raven Geary is a plaintiff in the Chicago lawsuit.) And while the court’s order prohibits dispersal orders aimed at peaceful protesters, if federal officers violate that order and also disperse the press to avoid a “disruption,” it will be much harder for the public to learn about it.

By declining to simply prohibit federal officers from dispersing the press, except when necessary to serve an essential government need such as public safety, the court also got the law wrong. Even when police can disperse protesters who break the law, the First Amendment doesn’t allow them to disperse journalists, too.

We’re not the only ones who say so. Just last year, the Department of Justice issued guidance stating as much:

“In the case of mass demonstrations, there may be situations—such as dispersal orders or curfews—where the police may reasonably limit public access. In these circumstances, to ensure that these limitations are narrowly tailored, the police may need to exempt reporters from these restrictions. …”

The DOJ also said so in a previous report, reprimanding the Minneapolis Police Department for its suppression of protesters and the press following George Floyd’s murder:

“The First Amendment requires that any restrictions on when, where, and how reporters gather information ‘leave open ample alternative channels’ for gathering the news. Blanket enforcement of dispersal orders and curfews against press violates this principle because they foreclose the press from reporting about what happens after the dispersal or curfew is issued, including how police enforce those orders.”

And in an important decision from 2020, the federal court of appeals in the 9th Circuit also disapproved of blanket dispersal orders being enforced against the press. That case arose from very similar circumstances to those today: federal authorities abusing the First Amendment while policing federal property during Black Lives Matter protests in Portland, Oregon.

In the 2020 case, the 9th Circuit affirmed a legal order that exempted journalists from general dispersal orders issued by the federal government. Journalists, it wrote, “cannot be punished for the violent acts of others.”

These authorities make it clear: Journalists cannot be ordered to move simply because it would be more convenient for officers. Journalists can only be dispersed if it’s essential to a compelling government interest, and only if they continue to have another vantage point from which they can see and hear what’s going on in order to report.

It’s frustrating that the court’s order leaves the door open for the government to evade this well-established principle. But the fight isn’t over. The court’s temporary restraining order is just a first step. When it issues a more permanent ruling, it will have another opportunity to get the prohibition on dispersing the press right.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Press freedom advocates were pleasantly surprised when police in Broadview, Illinois, announced plans to investigate federal immigration officers’ shooting of a local CBS News journalist with pepper balls, and when the Illinois State Police offered help.

But the same advocates were alarmed by subsequent reports of local police assisting federal agents rather than reining them in. They also questioned why widely reported attacks on independent journalists — who have made up a significant majority of those victimized by federal officers while covering the protests — were not being similarly investigated.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) led a letter demanding answers today, signed by over 20 local and national press freedom and civil liberties groups that came together to demand protection and justice for independent journalists risking their safety to inform the public.

“ICE’s violent attacks on journalists and others exercising their First Amendment rights, in Broadview and nationwide, should all be thoroughly investigated by the local authorities whose states and municipalities ICE has invaded. Any local law enforcement presence should be solely focused on mitigating the harm ICE is causing to our neighborhoods, our free press, and our Constitution, not on enabling more of it,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy at FPF.

“The violence and unlawful detainment of members of the press should concern us all. As demonstrations escalate, it’s imperative that authorities allow journalists to do their jobs of documenting what we are seeing on the ground. No one should have their First Amendment rights violated, especially journalists,” said Brandon Pope, president of NABJ-Chicago.

“The Chicago Journalists Association stands with journalists everywhere who are working to keep their communities informed,” the CJA board of directors said. “They should be free to exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of the press without intimidation, whether they’re fully employed by a news organization or practicing independently.”

You can read the letter here or below.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

After over 100 days in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, Mario Guevara was deported today. Read on for more about this and other press freedom abuses, and take a minute to tell your lawmakers to stand up for journalists victimized by ICE.

ICE is on a violent rampage against the press

Federal immigration officers reportedly promised a “shitshow” last weekend in response to criticism from the mayor of Broadview, Illinois, who didn’t appreciate her city being invaded. They delivered, and journalists were well represented among their victims.

One journalist, Steve Held, was arrested. Others, including Held’s reporting partner at Unraveled Press, Raven Geary, were shot in the face with pepper ball rounds. According to lawyers on the scene, the protests the reporters were covering were peaceful and uneventful until ICE officers decided to unleash chaos.

A few days later at an immigration court in New York City, where ICE agents have been trying to intimidate journalists for months, agents assaulted at least three journalists, one of whom couldn’t get up and had to be hospitalized. You can read what we told Chicago’s The Triibe about the Broadview attacks and New York’s amNY about the New York ones.

More importantly, you can tell your lawmakers to speak out against ICE’s abuses using our new, easy-to-use action center. Take action here.

Journalist Mario Guevara deported to El Salvador

After months of hard-fought battles in both the court of law and the court of public opinion, the Trump administration deported journalist Mario Guevara today. This case wasn’t about immigration paperwork — Guevara had a work permit, and the administration argued in court that Guevara’s reporting on protests posed a national security risk.

“The only thing that journalists like Guevara threaten is the government’s chokehold on information it doesn’t want the public to know. That’s why he’s being deported and why federal agents are assaulting and arresting journalists around the country,” FPF’s Seth Stern said after Guevara’s family announced his deportation.

Read the statement here.

Guilty of journalism in Kentucky

Student journalist Lucas Griffith was convicted of one count of failure to disperse and fined $50 plus court costs after a jury trial on Thursday.

That’s unconstitutional — even the U.S. Department of Justice recognizes journalists’ right to cover how law enforcement disperses protesters.

But it also shows what a giant waste of taxpayer funds it is to prosecute journalists for doing their jobs. Before the trial, we led a coalition letter from press freedom advocates and journalism professors objecting to the charges. Read it here.

FPF and 404 Media sue DHS

FPF and 404 Media filed a lawsuit against multiple parts of the U.S. government, including the Department of Homeland Security, demanding they hand over a copy of an agreement that shares the personal data of nearly 80 million Medicaid patients with ICE.

It’s just one of several recent lawsuits we’ve filed under the Freedom of Information Act. We also surpassed 200 FOIAs filed in 2025 this week. Subscribe to The Classifieds newsletter for more on our FOIA work.

Read more from 404 Media.

FCC censorship moves from prime time to prison

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr has taken a lot of heat for his “mafioso”-style extortion of ABC over Jimmy Kimmel’s show. But his latest censorship effort is even more dangerous. It could strip those inside America’s most secretive institutions — its prisons — of a tool that has proved extremely effective in exposing abuses.

We partnered with The Intercept to publish incarcerated journalist and FPF columnist Jeremy Busby’s response to the FCC’s efforts to allow prisons to “jam” cell phones. Busby used a contraband phone to expose and force reform of horrific conditions in Texas prisons during the pandemic. Read his article here.

Photography is not a hate crime

The arrest of Alexa Wilkinson on hate crime charges for photographing vandalism at The New York Times building has prompted hair splitting about whether they’re a journalist. It’s giving us flashbacks to the pointless obsession over whether Julian Assange was a journalist, and not whether his prosecution endangered press freedom.

Stern explains that regardless of how we categorize Wilkinson’s work, the charges set dangerous precedents that threaten the constitutional protections journalists depend on to do their jobs. Read more here.

FPF welcomes Adam Rose to bolster local advocacy

FPF is excited to welcome Adam Rose as the new deputy director of our advocacy team. Adam will primarily focus on protecting press freedom at the local level, where we have seen a sharp increase in arrests and assaults of journalists all around the country — many of which have not made national headlines.

Adam comes to FPF after serving as the chief operating officer of Starling Lab for Data Integrity and as the press rights chair of the Los Angeles Press Club, where he has been a tireless advocate for the press freedom rights of journalists in the LA area. He successfully lobbied for a California law that prohibits police from arresting or intentionally interfering with journalists as they cover protests. Most recently, as a plaintiff in multiple press freedom-related lawsuits, his efforts have resulted in landmark federal court orders against both the Department of Homeland Security and Los Angeles Police Department for violating the rights of the press. Read more here.

“This decision does real damage to bedrock principles of press freedom, and we urge the Court of Appeals to re-hear this case with a full panel of judges,” FPF’s Trevor Timm said.

“That somebody might use the app to break the law doesn’t mean the app can be banned,” Stern told BBC. After the interview, news broke that the administration successfully pressured Apple to pull the app.

This dismissal is nonsense. FPF’s Caitlin Vogus explained why in the Salt Lake Tribune earlier this year.

A U.S. journalist was on board. The U.S. Department of State should be all over this and it should be headline news. Neither is likely, because the government considers critics of Israel terrorists and the media often shuns reporters who oppose slaughtering their Palestinian colleagues.