Freedom of the Press

Neha Madhira grew up in North Texas with the TV constantly buzzing with world news. Madhira, now 24, recognized that journalism was key to keeping her family informed on the happenings back home in India. But with state-sanctioned violence limiting journalists on the ground from reporting, and few legacy media outlets with reporters that are representative of her left to report on it, Madhira also knew there were gaps to be filled.

Nearly a decade later, Madhira is bridging the gaps in Western media’s health and education coverage of the Middle East-North Africa region, South Asia, and their diasporas. The contacts she’s built have allowed her to expand her reporting focus — she recently collaborated with Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) on an article for The Intercept featuring testimonials from journalists targeted by the Israeli military.

“In a time where press freedom is definitely in question in the U.S. right now, and censorship on social media and in newsroom settings is even becoming more and more common, it’s really important for me that I stay true to my values of why I started reporting,” Madhira said. “I use freelancing to try my best to cover that gap in reporting when it comes to Western media, and try to cover the communities that I know deserve a platform.”

Madhira first spent years covering breaking news, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the social movements of 2020 for local newsrooms in Austin, Texas, while studying journalism and women’s and gender issues. But with activism movements roaring overseas, coupled with the lack of coverage on the impacts of the pandemic in India, she saw freelancing as an opportunity to cover issues happening in countries that face extreme press censorship for audiences overseas and in the U.S.

“A big part of my job during the pandemic, and even now, is reaching out to health care officials, regardless of what’s happening, to actually see who it’s affecting, why it’s affecting them, and what resources people need,” Madhira said. “If there’s a possibility that that information is being withheld from the public, that becomes a problem. How are we supposed to continue to inform and educate the public on how to stay safe during a pandemic or epidemic if we don’t even have that information to begin with?”

She has built close relationships with journalists on the ground in Iran, Afghanistan, India, Gaza, and the West Bank, relying on their reporting to reach audiences in the U.S. and abroad. Recognizing the privilege she holds, Madhira does her best to ensure their perspectives are reflected in her writing.

“I covered the Woman, Life, Freedom movement in Iran very extensively,” she said. “Two journalists who I really looked up to were arrested around this time last year. I wrote a story on that, and I noticed that a lot of Iranian and Iranian American activists were reaching out to me, appreciating the fact that the story was written, because even writing about their release and the details of how they are doing and how journalism and activism is continuing within the country is a privilege.”

Over the past year and a half, Madhira has covered the medical and humanitarian infrastructure collapses in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the campus encampments in protest of Israel’s actions, and the shadowy organizations collaborating with the government to identify and persecute students and others who are critical of Israel.

“As we see less and less news coming out of Gaza, I urge people to not look away.”

With more than 180 journalists killed by Israel to date, media blackouts, and censorship on social media, Madhira writes to amplify the voices of her colleagues remaining on the ground, including those whose stories she wrote about in The Intercept.

“I have advocated for Palestine since I was a child, and at the beginning of October 2023, I was horrified at the language being used to dehumanize Palestinians,” she said. “As a journalist, I was seeing the gaps in Western media coverage and its support of Israel, and I wanted to help change this narrative in any way I could. As we see less and less news coming out of Gaza, I urge people to not look away and to pay closer attention to passive voice being used to describe the atrocities Palestinians continue to face every day.”

While the stories that Madhira tells are urgent and deserving of immediate attention, communicating with people on the ground in Gaza is a slow, challenging process. “Most of the people I’ve interviewed, whether that be journalists, or medical workers, or humanitarian workers, there is a small gap every single day that they have access to the internet, and we have used that to communicate with each other every single day,” she said. “I continue to do that because their voices are the most important and the most pertinent.”

Reporting from the U.S. on Palestine has not come without its own battles against censorship. Having experienced “shadow banning” that has limited visibility of her social media posts, she said the public must pay attention to the ways social media platforms moderate content to censor certain news, and she calls for users to consume content carefully. By amplifying journalists’ content on social media, independent reporting can reach wider audiences and fight against algorithmic suppression, Madhira added.

“There are a lot more people who are in the dark about what is happening than you would think,” she said. “There are so many nonprofit, independent newsrooms, not only in the U.S., but around the world who do incredible reporting for very little money, and it’s important to pay attention, because these journalists are some of the most skilled and experienced within their field.”

A recent news report about Secret Service surveillance of former FBI Director James Comey suggests that the Trump administration is abusing its spying powers.

You may remember that the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security launched an investigation into Comey for posting a picture on Instagram during his beach vacation of seashells spelling out “8647.” Conservatives claimed that Comey’s post was a threat to our 47th president, Donald Trump. Never mind that “86” is slang for banning someone or something, not killing them. There’s also that whole First Amendment thing.

Then, The New York Times reported earlier this month that the Secret Service, as part of its investigation, had Comey “followed by law enforcement authorities in unmarked cars and street clothes and tracked the location of his cellphone” as Comey returned home from his vacation, even though he had already submitted to a phone interview and agreed to an in-person interview.

As the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Jake Laperruque pointed out, that kind of surveillance — real-time location tracking based on cellphone data — generally requires court approval. Although the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on whether it requires a warrant, several other courts have held that it does.

There’s an important exception, however, to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Known as exigent circumstances, it allows for warrantless searches in emergencies. Sources told the Times that the Secret Service invoked that exact exception to justify following Comey.

But Reason Magazine does a good job explaining why that rationale is bunk:

“‘A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement’s need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home…engage in ‘hot pursuit’ of a fleeing suspect…or enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause,’ the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Missouri v. McNeely (2013).

“None of those factors apply here: Comey was on the move, but he was not ‘fleeing’—he was coming home from vacation. If the Secret Service really thought he warranted further scrutiny, it had plenty of time to get a warrant from a judge.”

At least three federal appeals courts have permitted warrantless tracking of real-time cellphone location in emergencies. In one case, a man with a criminal history broke a window at his former girlfriend’s home with a gun and threatened to kill her, her seven-year-old, and other family members before fleeing. In another, a man running a drug operation murdered a potential informant, leaving police concerned that other informants who had infiltrated the operation were at risk. And in the third case, a gang member previously charged with drug crimes threatened to “shoot up” an informant.

These cases are a far cry from posting a picture of seashells on social media. And even if authorities truly believed Comey intended to threaten Trump, he had no way of carrying out that threat at the time he was tracked, since Trump was in the Middle East.

In other words, in Comey’s case, the Trump administration expanded the exigent circumstances exception beyond recognition. But it isn’t the only recent example of the government abusing its power to spy using cellphone data. A recent investigation by Straight Arrow News also detected evidence of a cellphone tracking device commonly known as a “stingray” at an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protest, despite DHS policy requiring a warrant for its use except in — you guessed it — exigent circumstances.

These reports should raise red flags for everyone concerned about surveillance — including journalists and their sources. We already know that the government has tracked at least some physical movements of journalists in past leak investigations. Cellphone location data tracking allows even more all-encompassing surveillance.

If authorities are willing to claim that Comey’s social media post is an emergency justifying warrantless real-time cellphone location tracking, it’s not hard to imagine that they could make a similar (bogus) claim about a suspected whistleblower or a journalist who reports critically on the administration. It wouldn’t be any more meritless than their claims that journalism is inciting crimes or threatening national security.

Concerningly, there’s very little constraint on the government if it decides to abuse the exigent circumstances exception to make emergency requests to cellphone providers for users’ location information. While courts can suppress evidence obtained through illegal searches, they can’t undo the illegal search itself, and officers and officials who abuse the Fourth Amendment face no personal repercussions.

Cellphone providers also seem unable to detect and refuse bogus emergency requests. The three major cellphone carriers — AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile — receive thousands or tens of thousands of emergency requests every year. While they require a certification of emergency from the government authority making the request, clearly that process isn’t foolproof if something like the Comey “emergency” can slip through the cracks.

That makes public scrutiny of real-time cellphone location tracking and the government’s reliance on the exigent circumstances exception all the more important. The Fourth Estate — and confidential sources like those who spoke to the Times — may be our most powerful remaining check on the surveillance state.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 114th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like, and the 34th day that Mario Guevara has been imprisoned for covering a protest. Read on for more about how the government is stifling speech and reporting—and how to fight back.

Reporting isn’t ‘incitement,’ no matter what the government says

Not content with harassing journalists as they gather the news, the government is also increasingly threatening them with prosecution for reporting it.

At least three times now, the Trump administration has accused journalists who have reported on the government’s immigration crackdown of inciting violence or lawlessness. This raises the possibility that the government will attempt to prosecute journalists for incitement, the crime of instigating others to break the law.

Reporting the news doesn’t even come close to meeting the First Amendment standards for incitement. But the government is counting on its spurious accusations to silence reporting. Read more here.

FPF files complaint against judge who ruled for Trump in frivolous Pulitzer case

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and Demand Progress filed an ethics complaint against Edward Artau, a Florida judge who was nominated by President Donald Trump to a federal district court. The nomination came after Artau delivered a favorable ruling for Trump in his baseless lawsuit against the Pulitzer Board for not rescinding awards to journalists who were critical of Trump.

“Judges should be safeguarding us against President Trump’s frivolous attacks on the free press, the First Amendment and the rule of law. Instead, Judge Artau seems eager to facilitate Trump’s unconstitutional antics in exchange for a job … Attorney disciplinary commissions need to rise to this moment and not tolerate ethical violations that impact not only individuals before the court but our entire democracy,” said FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern. Read more here.

Warren introduces presidential library bill

Trump’s presidential library has already received nearly half a billion dollars in known donations, including the settlement from his frivolous lawsuit against ABC. This is a staggering figure considering a library may never be built, and Trump’s CBS shakedown is poised to add to the haul.

This begs the question, is Trump using the ruse of building a library as a vehicle for funneling bribes? It’s possible, and a new bill introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and endorsed by FPF would help put a stop to the potential corruption and make presidential foundations more transparent.

Read more about the bill here.

Gabbard fires FOIA officials after FPF request makes headlines

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has reportedly fired a Freedom of Information Act official who “facilitated” the release of a document to FPF in response to a records request we filed in April.

That document blew apart the Trump administration’s rationale for deporting Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador. The administration had also cited the supposed “fake news” to justify policy changes it claims allow it to investigate journalist-source communications.

FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper breaks down Gabbard’s attempts to stifle lawful disclosures and reporting and how we’re using FOIA to fight back. Read more here.

Fighting authoritarianism with transparency

Speaking of freedom of information, Harper joined NPR’s “1A” this week to discuss how government secrecy undermines the democratic process and what steps we can take to boost transparency.

With overclassification rampant, FOIA offices understaffed and underpowered, and the Trump administration exploiting loopholes to avoid transparency, we’re experiencing “dangerous levels of government secrecy,” Harper said.

But Harper also explained how specific reforms can increase transparency and help preserve our democracy. Listen here.

What we’re reading

ICE lawyers are hiding their names in immigration court (The Intercept). ICE lawyers shouldn’t hide their identities in court, and immigration judges shouldn’t condone the practice.

This disturbing trend must stop immediately.

Senate approves cuts to NPR, PBS, and foreign aid programs (NPR). Clawing back government funding for public media is an attack on every American who relies on it for news and emergency information.

How user-generated videos on social media brought Trump’s immigration crackdown to America’s screens (NBC News). This is exactly why we must defend the First Amendment right to record police in public and laws that protect against online censorship.

It’s not just the Epstein files. The Trump administration is withholding all kinds of public records. (MSNBC). FOIA is “certainly on life support,” said FPF’s Harper.

NJ reporter faces legal battle over police blotter (New Jersey Globe). “Prosecuting journalists for declining to censor themselves is alarming and blatantly unconstitutional, as is ordering the press to unpublish news reports,” explained FPF’s Seth Stern.

How factory farms criminalized journalism to block viral videos of animal cruelty (Rolling Stone). Even as they’re struck down for violating the First Amendment, ag-gag laws that limit the public’s access to information about the agricultural industry are becoming a model for cracking down on reporting on other industries, too.

On Thursday, Demand Progress and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) filed an ethics complaint against Edward L. Artau, a Florida judge who was nominated by President Donald Trump to a federal district court after delivering a favorable ruling for Trump in his defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Board. The ethics complaint asks the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission to investigate Artau for potentially breaking rules requiring judges to recuse themselves to avoid conflicts of interest, remain impartial, avoid impropriety, and avoid giving false statements.

Politico reported that Artau, who sought for Trump to nominate him shortly after the president won the 2024 presidential election, later ruled in Trump’s favor as part of a panel of state appellate judges deciding whether to allow the president’s lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board to move forward. After joining a favorable panel ruling for Trump, and after going out of his way to write a gratuitous solo concurrence praising the lawsuit’s claims on the merits, Artau was nominated to be a judge on South Florida’s U.S. trial court. Artau later gave an incomplete and misleading testimony about these events to the Senate Judiciary Committee while under oath.

“A federal judge’s goal should be upholding the law and the American people’s confidence in the judiciary, not delivering whatever the president wants so that they can get a job,” said Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress. “Judge Ed Artau’s behind-closed-doors jockeying for his nomination, his failure to recuse himself from the Pulitzer lawsuit and his misleading testimony to the Senate all raise bright red flags that need to be investigated.”

Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said: “Judges should be safeguarding us against President Trump’s frivolous attacks on the free press, the First Amendment and the rule of law. Instead, Judge Artau seems eager to facilitate Trump’s unconstitutional antics in exchange for a job. That’s far from the level of integrity that the Rules of Professional Conduct demand. Attorney disciplinary commissions need to rise to this moment and not tolerate ethical violations that impact not only individuals before the court but our entire democracy.”

Read the Complaint here or below.

Remember when President Donald Trump derided the news media and flatly declared that “what they do is illegal” during a speech at the Department of Justice?

Turns out, he meant it.

The Trump administration is increasingly accusing journalists of inciting violence or lawlessness — and possibly breaking the law — by simply reporting the news. It’s now made these claims at least three times, all related to reporting on the government’s immigration crackdown.

It’s bad enough that the administration wants to jail journalists for refusing to reveal their sources or for obtaining and publishing classified information. But these recent accusations seem to raise a third possibility: prosecuting journalists for incitement, the crime of instigating others to break the law.

Unsurprisingly, none of the reporting that the government has attacked comes anywhere close to the legal definition of incitement under the First Amendment. But even baseless accusations aren’t harmless. They can chill reporting and leave the public less informed.

A trio of troubling threats

The most recent example of the Trump administration accusing reporters of incitement for straightforward journalism is its attack on CNN for reporting on ICEBlock, an app that alerts users when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are nearby.

In response to a question from The Daily Wire suggesting that CNN’s report was “promoting” ICEBlock, press secretary Karoline Leavitt directly accused CNN of inciting “further violence against our ICE officers.”

Leavitt admitted that she hadn’t actually watched the CNN segment before she made this accusation. If she had, she would have seen that nothing in CNN’s report comes even remotely close to encouraging violence against ICE officers.

Rather, CNN spoke to ICEBlock’s creator, who described how the app works and, crucially, how it could allow people to avoid encountering ICE officers, who have been known to violently attack people and arrest U.S. citizens. The CNN reporter also quoted a warning from the app that said it’s not to be used to interfere with law enforcement or incite violence.

Yet the Department of Justice is reportedly considering prosecuting CNN, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem flatly declared, “What they’re doing is illegal.”

Similarly, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr strongly implied to Fox News that radio station KCBS had encouraged violence against ICE agents by reporting on an immigration raid in east San Jose earlier this year. KCBS is now the subject of an unconstitutional investigation by the FCC for its report, which the station appears to have removed from its website.

When discussing the KCBS broadcast on Fox, Carr made sure to note both that the area of the city being raided was known for “violent gang activity,” and that the broadcast was made “against the backdrop of Democratic leaders in Congress saying it’s time for people to take fights to the street against Trump’s agenda.” What Carr didn’t mention is that there was no evidence of any violence against ICE agents during or after the raid.

Finally, the White House recently rebuked The New Yorker for its reporting on the Trump administration’s targeting of Democratic lawmakers and their staff who’ve opposed the immigration crackdown, like Rep. LaMonica McIver, who was charged with assaulting a federal officer outside of an immigration detention facility in a case that she’s called “political intimidation.”

In response to the New Yorker’s reporting about these and other incidents, a White House spokesperson said, “It’s alarming Democrats think they can obstruct federal law enforcement, assault ICE agents, or physically push law enforcement officers while charging a cabinet secretary, without consequence—it’s even more alarming that the New Yorker is encouraging this lawless behavior.”

Again, nothing in the New Yorker’s report “encouraged” anything. The magazine relied on regular journalistic techniques for its reporting, such as interviewing sources, and reviewing videos and past reporting to report straightforwardly on what’s happened to Democrats detained or arrested while opposing the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

None of this is incitement

Not only does none of this reporting actually encourage anyone to do anything illegal, it also fails to meet the legal standards for “incitement,” which the First Amendment sets incredibly high.

Under the First Amendment, a person can be found guilty of incitement only if they advocate for imminent lawless action and their speech is likely to incite or produce such action. It also requires intent to induce another to break the law. To protect against governmental overreach and censorship, general advocacy — even of violence or another crime—can’t be criminalized.

Writing a news story about someone else’s conduct, even if their actions are illegal, obviously doesn’t meet this standard. Reporting on something isn’t an endorsement of it, let alone advocacy for others to immediately break the law. Even editorials or op-eds praising illegal conduct would fall under the category of general advocacy, protected by the First Amendment.

But the officials slinging these accusations against the press don’t care as much about the law as they do about chilling reporting. It’s not surprising, then, that they’ve focused on journalism about ICE.

As the public’s approval for Trump’s handling of immigration drops, the government knows that the more people learn about the cruel, illegal, and deadly tactics it’s using to deport their neighbors, the more blowback it will face. It’s counting on its spurious accusations to silence reporting. The only antidote? For journalists to keep reporting.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 107th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like, and the 27th day that Mario Guevara has spent behind bars for covering a protest. Read on for news on more recent affronts by the government on the free press.

LA journalists reflect on protest attacks

Journalists covering recent demonstrations in California have been assaulted, detained, shot with crowd-control munitions, and had their equipment searched — simply for doing their jobs.

Independent journalists from Los Angeles talk to FPF about the attacks from law enforcement they endured while covering recent demonstrations.

Independent reporters are especially vulnerable. We hosted an online discussion with some of them — Ben Camacho, Sean Beckner-Carmitchel and Tina-Desiree Berg — to hear their firsthand accounts of their efforts to uphold the public’s right to know. We were also joined by Adam Rose, press rights chair at the Los Angeles Press Club, which, along with others, has sued law enforcement agencies for violating freedom of the press at the recent protests. Since our discussion, the judge in one of those lawsuits has ordered the Los Angeles Police Department to stop violating the First Amendment rights of journalists covering protests.

Listen to the conversation here.

New Jersey prosecutors ignore Constitution

Prosecutors are pursuing blatantly unconstitutional criminal charges against two Red Bank, New Jersey, journalists for declining to remove a police blotter entry about an arrest from a news website after the arrest was expunged, as FPF’s U.S. Press Freedom Tracker first reported.

They’re alleged to have engaged in disorderly conduct by revealing the existence of an arrest, knowing that the arrest record has been expunged or sealed, in violation of New Jersey Revised Statutes Section 2C:52-30.

We said in a press release that “prosecuting journalists for declining to censor themselves is alarming and blatantly unconstitutional … Any prosecutors who would even think to bring such charges either don’t know the first thing about the Constitution they’re sworn to uphold, or don’t care.” Read more here.

The rise and fall of FOIA Gras

Tom Hayden never intended to become a journalist. But in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Hayden decided to look into how his local school district in Evanston, Illinois, was making decisions about when to send kids back to school.

That led to his Substack newsletter, FOIA Gras. As the name implies, it focused on Freedom of Information Act-based reporting. He broke important stories about local schools and more, and FOIA Gras became an invaluable resource for Evanstonians.

But earlier this year, he decided to shut it down after growing tired of the personal toll of being an unpaid citizen journalist covering politically charged news. Read more here.

Secrecy surrounds ICE’s for-profit detention network

President Donald Trump’s signature budget legislation allocates Immigration and Customs Enforcement a staggering $45 billion to expand immigrant detention efforts. Much of this money will go towards tripling ICE’s for-profit detention facility network.

Even though these private facilities hold human beings in federal custody under federal law, they are not subject to FOIA, the federal transparency law. This must change. Read more here.

Speaking of secret police…

Louisiana is the latest state to ignore the First Amendment to restrict journalists and others from recording police up close. Countless important news stories have come from footage of police abuses — which is exactly why we keep seeing laws like these.

We joined a legal brief led by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and National Press Photographers Association. If you’re able, NPPA is definitely an organization you should support. They do an incredible job protecting the rights of photojournalists and all journalists, but they’re in financial trouble and need your help. Read the brief here.

What we’re reading

SPJ urges caution on anti-doxing laws, warns of threat to press freedom (Society of Professional Journalists). Anti-doxing laws, if not drafted carefully, could become tools to punish journalism. Read the letter we signed urging the Uniform Law Commission to pause potential legislation.

‘I am being persecuted’ | Atlanta journalist held in ICE custody releases letter (WALB News). “I am being persecuted for having carried out my journalistic work ... I need to get out in order to continue with my life, return to my work, and support my family,” wrote imprisoned journalist Mario Guevara.

Immigration officials used shadowy pro-Israel group to target student activists (The New York Times). Students exercising their First Amendment rights shouldn’t concern the government. And officials should base decisions on real intelligence, not “research” by amateur internet trolls.

Trump officials want to prosecute over the ICEBlock app. Lawyers say that’s unconstitutional (Wired). “ICE and the Trump administration are under the misimpression that law enforcement in the United States is entitled to operate in secret,” we told Wired.

I chaired the FCC. The ‘60 Minutes’ settlement shows Trump has weaponized the agency (The Guardian). “What was once an independent, policy-based agency is now using its leverage to further the Maga message,” writes former Federal Communications Commission Chair Tom Wheeler.

Gabbard’s team has sought spy agency data to enforce Trump’s agenda (The Washington Post). This retaliation could chill FOIA releases across the government. We are filing FOIA requests to learn how Gabbard’s agency is trying to stifle lawful disclosures.

Wishing for a world where corporate motives didn’t clash with the sacred trust of journalism (Poynter). “The ethics of the professional and the business can bump into each other. When they do, it is imperative that the ethics of the profession take precedence.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Prosecutors are pursuing baseless criminal charges against two Red Bank, New Jersey, journalists for refusing to remove a police blotter entry from a news website, as the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s U.S. Press Freedom Tracker first reported.

The defendants are Redbankgreen publisher Kenny Katzgrau and reporter Brian Donohue. They’re alleged to have engaged in disorderly conduct by revealing the existence of an arrest, knowing that the arrest record has been expunged or sealed, in violation of New Jersey Revised Statutes Section 2C:52-30. They’re represented by Pashman Stein Walder Hayden P.C., who have moved to dismiss the ridiculous charges. (Read their motion to dismiss below.)

On Sept. 18, 2024, Redbankgreen published the August 2024 blotter provided by the Red Bank Police Department, which contained information about the arrest. The arrest was later expunged on March 27, 2025. The blotter published by the Redbankgreen includes an update that the arrest was expunged, as well as a note that arrests in general are not determinations of guilt.

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

Prosecuting journalists for declining to censor themselves is alarming and blatantly unconstitutional, as is ordering the press to unpublish news reports. Any prosecutors who would even think to bring such charges either don’t know the first thing about the Constitution they’re sworn to uphold, or don’t care. Failure to immediately correct and apologize for this inexplicable error would put prosecutors’ competence in doubt and warrant investigation of whether they should keep their law licenses.

The Supreme Court has held over and over that journalists are entitled to publish truthful information they lawfully obtain, in cases dealing with matters as sensitive as closed juvenile court proceedings and identities of rape victims. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has also upheld the right to publish expunged information. There is no exception for expunged arrest records and any state law that says otherwise violates the First Amendment. Any first-year law student should know that.

Journalists don’t work for the government and can’t be compelled to do its bidding. In the rare instances where the government is allowed to keep records from public view, it is the government’s responsibility, not the media’s, to ensure that they aren’t disclosed.

This is the latest in a string of egregious press freedom violations by local police and prosecutors across the country. Virtually all of them have failed and left taxpayers on the hook for needless legal fees, settlement payments, or both.

Earlier this year, Clarksdale, Mississippi, officials got a judge to order a newspaper to take down an editorial critical of the mayor. After national headlines about their frivolous antics led to public ridicule, they dropped the case.

Last year, the city of Los Angeles was forced to pay a settlement to journalist Ben Camacho after it sued him for publishing public records. Authorities in LA are also facing a lawsuit over an unconstitutional investigation of a journalist who obtained police disciplinary records.

In 2023, prosecutors in Atmore, Alabama, charged a journalist and news publisher for reporting on grand jury proceedings. The case was thrown out after becoming a national embarrassment, and a lawsuit is pending.

And most famously, the same year, authorities in Marion, Kansas, raided the newsroom of the Marion County Record as part of an investigation premised on the absurd notion that reporters violated computer crime laws by accessing a public website to confirm a news tip. The ordeal has led to multiple settlements and lawsuits, and even criminal charges against the ex-police chief who orchestrated it.

This is also, unfortunately, not the first recent instance of authorities harassing journalists over lawful reporting on arrests. Last year, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu threatened civil penalties against a journalist, Jack Poulson, who reported on a sealed report of tech executive Maury Blackman’s arrest for domestic violence. A judge held that the California law that Chiu referenced to threaten Poulson was unconstitutional and, in a separate proceeding, a lawsuit brought by Blackman against Poulson was dismissed.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

When journalist Ben Camacho set out to cover protests in Paramount, California, he did not expect to become a part of the story he was reporting. But that’s what happened after he was shot twice with crowd-control munitions by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies June 7.

“As a reporter of color, there’s this dynamic where I’m out there on the field and I look like the majority of people that are protesting. … There’s this kind of other layer that I feel,” said Camacho, co-founder of The Southlander, during a Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) webinar July 9.

Despite having a press badge and camera around his neck, Camacho was hit in the knee and then in the elbow with “less-lethal” projectiles. The pain sent him into shock, screaming and scrambling for cover. The injuries left him unable to work for a week, with lingering pain in his knee and elbow that continues to affect him a month later.

Camacho shared his story alongside three other journalists during “Reporting under fire: Protests and press freedom in Los Angeles,” an event spotlighting a growing crisis in California’s streets and newsrooms.

Speakers Adam Rose, press rights chair and secretary of the Los Angeles Press Club, Sean Beckner-Carmitchel, an independent videographer, and Tina-Desiree Berg, a journalist for Status Coup, also spoke on the harassment, violence, and intimidation they faced in their own city while covering LA’s immigration protests.

They emphasized practical steps journalists can take to protect themselves while continuing to cover critical stories. Among the advice shared:

• Wear protective gear. Bring a gas mask and ballistic goggles, and keep your press pass clearly visible. Berg recommended wearing Kevlar leggings beneath pants for added protection.
• Travel with colleagues. Watching out for each other can make all the difference, especially if someone is injured.
• Be aware of your surroundings. Always assess your situation and be prepared to move quickly.
• Document everything. Keep records and collect evidence of any violations or incidents.
• Conduct a mental health check-in. Emotional and psychological impacts from covering trauma should not be overlooked. Camacho shared that he gauges how he’s feeling mentally each day before deciding whether to head out into the field.
• Utilize your resources. There are numerous training and mental health resources available to journalists. The Dart Center at Columbia University runs a Journalist Trauma Support Network. Many organizations, such as the LA Press Club, offer grants for journalists.

These precautions were shared alongside firsthand accounts, showing how deeply the panelists’ advice is rooted in their lived realities.

California has seen dozens of press freedom violations in 2025 alone, including detentions, assaults, and equipment seizures, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

Although Rose was not physically targeted, he provided context from his role at the LA Press Club, highlighting the large number of press freedom violations in LA in the first weeks of June alone.

The incidents ranged from journalists being detained and kettled to more severe outcomes like hospitalization and life-changing injuries.

“We see these agencies acting lawlessly,” Rose said. “They are shooting journalists with ‘less-lethal’ munitions. They’re detaining and even arresting journalists simply for doing their job.”

The violence has unfolded despite legal protections. California’s Senate Bill 98 created Penal Code 409.7, barring California law enforcement from interfering with journalists’ work during protests.

Yet the reality on the ground tells a different story as federal law enforcement has been brought in.

Berg shared her experiences witnessing the protests that erupted in LA starting June 6, sparked by outrage over Immigration and Customs Enforcement detentions of asylum-seekers.

She said the early days of June protests were some of the most intense she’s ever seen, with multiple law enforcement agencies present in force, including the LA Police Department, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Guard.

“This particular issue has drawn people from all walks of life and all age groups in large numbers,” Berg said. “When you have the large numbers, a large number of protesters out there, accompanied by all these various forms of law enforcement, it could be a more risky, dangerous situation.”

She witnessed police deploying tear gas into crowds, escalating tensions. To her, that weekend marked the beginning of a new wave of unrest.

“I knew at that moment that this was the start of something,” Berg said. “These things sort of just were compounded, and that weekend became, you know, what was the whole full-blown start of these protests.”

Beckner-Carmitchel also shared his encounters while covering protests in the LA area. A tear gas canister struck him in the head, exploded, and left him temporarily blinded and with a large hematoma.

Fortunately, he passed concussion protocols, but the potential for permanent injury was high.

Since then, he said he has been hit by plastic rounds and other projectiles at least three times.

“It’s been difficult to report under these conditions, and I’m sure everyone can agree,” Beckner-Carmitchel said.

But these journalists are not just recounting their stories, they’re seeking accountability. The LA Press Club, Status Coup, and Southlander are now joined in various lawsuits against the LAPD, the LA Sheriff’s Department, and the DHS, arguing their First Amendment rights were violated.

The stories shared during the webinar showed a troubling pattern: reporters targeted for simply doing their jobs of documenting the truth. And yet, despite injury, trauma, and intimidation, they continue to report.

“I get motivated when I’m told not to do something,” Beckner-Carmitchel said. “That’s why I became a journalist in the first place.”

Watch the whole event here.

This article was originally published by the National Press Club Journalism Institute here and is republished with permission.

Tom Hayden never intended to become a journalist. But in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Hayden decided to look into how his local school district in Evanston, Illinois, was making decisions about when to send kids back to school.

It was a contentious issue in town and deserved journalistic inquiry. But Hayden realized the decline of local media left a void that someone needed to fill. So he decided to step up and launch his Substack newsletter FOIA Gras, which as the name implies, focused on Freedom of Information Act-based reporting.

“Ten years ago, a board meeting would have had reporters from suburban beats that are all gone now,” Hayden said. “Now, you just see the high school beat reporter.”

Hayden’s side gig as a journalist was a big success, and his focus expanded beyond pandemic issues. “Our local board initially hated me, but now they consider me like their inspector general,” Hayden said in March. “I’m able to get records that they don’t even know about. I break stories to them about lawsuits that they don’t even know about.”

But soon after we spoke, and after he completed his coverage of Evanston’s school board elections, Hayden announced that he was ending his experiment with citizen journalism. “It’s rendered a considerable toll on my mental well-being, my professional day-to-day career, my finances, and my relationships. I always told myself if the fun is gone, I can walk away, and the fun is gone,” he wrote.

‘Throwing darts’ at public records

Hayden was familiar with FOIA requests before venturing into journalism, from seeking records as part of his day job in the corrosion industry. So, when families started moving out of Evanston to nearby towns where schools had reopened, Hayden put on his citizen-journalist hat and started pulling records.

FOIA Gras quickly became a go-to source for Evanstonians to find out what was happening in their school district and community. Hayden said his goal was to use the truth to “try to find a way to bridge the people in this town that have political street fights over this.” Instead of bickering, he thought, “Let’s go get the actual records.”

He said he ”started kind of just throwing darts, looking mainly at lists of public records from the board meetings, which are public, and they immediately hit.”

Under Illinois’ public records laws, requesters are not charged fees for most records requests (aside from copying costs for large document sets). It’s a powerful law, Hayden said, as long as you are diligent and know what you are looking for.

“Our local board initially hated me, but now they consider me like their inspector general. I’m able to get records that they don’t even know about.”

Hayden said the records he requested showed that then-superintendent Devon Horton had been misappropriating funds and steering contracts to business partners, misleading Evanstonians about financing for a school in Evanston’s Fifth Ward, and more.

With longstanding achievement gaps and funding disparities, Hayden felt that Horton had used promises of championing diversity to divide the public rather than address the issues. “Equity is about lifting oppressed communities, not using them as a shoulder to lift yourself to a better job,” he wrote.

A fork in the road

As a citizen journalist and his own boss, Hayden was able to set his own parameters. Despite the success of the newsletter, however, Hayden announced he was closing down FOIA Gras in March, when the work outweighed the fun and backlash against his editorial choices started affecting his personal life.

“Ultimately, for me, I sort of reached the point where this project reached a fork in the road,” Hayden said, “where I have to decide, ‘Am I a professional journalist, or am I a citizen-journalist-slash-parent-slash-community-member?’”

In one particular case, in 2022, a middle schooler was caught making nooses out of jump ropes outside of a school while a protest was going on inside over some teachers being transferred. The incident blew up in Evanston, but Hayden decided not to cover it at the time to protect the children’s identities.

“The reality is that nobody knows why the student did it,” Hayden said, but the incident became part of a narrative around a school anti-racism initiative.

Hayden FOIA’d a copy of the associated police report, which he said police provided, but improperly, because it contained information on a minor.

“The incentives are broken. This is a massive national issue — there is very little money in the pursuit of truth.”

After obtaining the report, Hayden reached out to the parents involved for comment and began writing a story about the district’s response to the nooses incident. Through his reporting, Hayden became uncomfortable continuing to report on a story based on speculation and decided to stop. Unfortunately, that made some of his readers angry.

One parent reached out to Hayden and provided some information about his child, who was only ”tangentially involved, but not the kid who made the nooses,” Hayden said. But the parent then provided the story to a national outlet, The Free Press, because, said Hayden, it fit its agenda of having “anti-woke stories.” That outlet ultimately ran the story.

The Free Press reported that, according to its sources, the child who made the noose was dealing with mental health issues and didn’t know about the racial connotations of hanging nooses. It accused Superintendent Horton of turning a child’s cry for help into a self-promotion opportunity during the peak of the Black Lives Matter movement. It framed Evanston — known for the country’s first municipal reparations program, among other racial justice initiatives — as an example of wokeness going too far (not long after the article, the Trump administration launched an investigation of the school district).

“Very little money in the pursuit of truth”

The drama surrounding the noose incident and Free Press article was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Hayden. People began ascribing nefarious motives to his decision not to cover the story, when in reality he just didn’t want to contribute to putting middle schoolers in the middle of a public spectacle. Hayden decided he’d close down FOIA Gras after this year’s school board election. He continues to both work full-time and teach data governance at Northwestern University.

“There’s a set of ethical rules that a professional journalist has to follow, especially when it comes to editorial decisions and injecting my own opinion into stories,” Hayden said. “I just reached that fork in the road.” His preference was always to report on verifiable data — that’s why he felt so at home with FOIA. But fact-based reporting wasn’t enough for his readers, and the aforementioned “political street fights” continued despite his efforts.

Ultimately, despite the important news he broke, the experience left Hayden cynical about the future of the profession he dabbled in. “I don’t feel good about the future of journalism,” he wrote in his departing announcement. “The incentives are broken,” Hayden said. “This is a massive national issue — there is very little money in the pursuit of truth.”

This is fourth in a series of profiles of independent journalists who use public records to hold local governments accountable. The third, about Michelle Pitcher’s reporting on the Texas criminal justice system, is here. The second, about Hannah Bassett of the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, is here. The first, about Lisa Pickoff-White of the California Reporting Project, is here.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 100th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like. Now, Salvadoran journalist Mario Guevara could be deported after being arrested while trying to report on a protest. Read on for more press freedom news.

Paramount’s spineless capitulation

For a while, it looked like Paramount might come to its senses. After warnings from Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) as well as several state and federal lawmakers, directors were reportedly worried that settling President Donald Trump’s frivolous lawsuit to grease the wheels for approval of a merger could subject them to liability for bribery.

But ultimately, majority owner Shari Redstone — who stands to make a fortune if the merger with Skydance Media closes — got her way, and Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle. We said in a press release that the settlement “will be remembered as one of the most shameful capitulations by the press to a president in history. But we are not done fighting. We’ve already filed a shareholder information demand and … we will continue to pursue our legal options to stop this affront to Paramount shareholders, CBS journalists, and the First Amendment.”

Legendary First Amendment lawyers Floyd Abrams and James Goodale also gave us their reactions. They both recall a time when news outlets were owned by news companies that had both economic and principled interests in defending the First Amendment. They’re alarmed by what they’re seeing today. Read more here.

Atrocities against Palestinian journalists

Advocating for Palestinian journalists from the United States is tougher than ever these days, with an administration that doesn’t even pretend to care about dead reporters.

But sometimes journalism itself is the best way to effect change, and that’s why we partnered with The Intercept and independent journalist Neha Madhira to tell the stories of journalists who have been targeted by the Israeli military — often after receiving warnings to stop their reporting, or else. Their testimonials speak for themselves. Read more here.

Don’t let ICE work in secret

Interested in what Immigration and Customs Enforcement is up to? Step right up to read ICE’s many press releases touting their accomplishments, watch “Dr. Phil” McGraw’s ICE ride-alongs on his new TV network, and, of course, follow ICE on social platform X.

Just don’t expect to read independent reporting about ICE activity — at least not if government officials get their way. Journalists and members of the public who report on ICE are increasingly under attack by officials who would prefer to silence them so government propaganda can fill the information void. Read more here.

Wiretap Act can’t criminalize routine journalism

We joined a coalition of free-speech groups and filed an amicus brief in the case against journalist Tim Burke for publishing unaired Fox News footage of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Ye, formerly known as Kanye West.

Prosecutors are using the Wiretap Act, which prohibits “intercepting” “electronic communications,” in an attempt to convict Burke for publicizing Ye’s antisemitic rant, among other things. Their position is that they can charge Burke regardless of whether the footage was publicly available — he needs to prove that as a defense.

“Police, prosecutors and thin-skinned politicians would love the ability to harass and punish journalists who use the internet for routine reporting whenever they so please. The government’s construction of the Wiretap Act would give them the perfect excuse to do so,” FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern said in a press release. Read more here.

What we’re reading

Tulsi Gabbard is hunting for “deep-state criminals.” Is she even following the law? (The Intercept). “The leak — and the official FOIA release — didn’t damage national security at all. It informed the public about one of the administration’s most pernicious lies to date,” FPF’s Lauren Harper told The Intercept.

Trump’s attacks on CNN, Fox underscore effort to stifle questions, put media on back foot (The Hill). Recent White House crackdowns on leaked intelligence “have nothing to do with national security and everything to do with saving themselves from embarrassment,” FPF’s Stern told The Hill.

ICE hardens: Masked agents intimidate reporters while seizing more immigrants at Lower Manhattan court (AMNY). Harassing journalists might rank pretty low on the list of awful things masked ICE goons are doing these days. But without journalists we wouldn’t know about the rest of them, and the administration is well aware of that.

Interested in what Immigration and Customs Enforcement is up to? Step right up to read ICE’s many press releases touting their accomplishments, watch Dr. Phil’s ICE ride-alongs on his new TV network, and, of course, follow ICE on social platform X.

Just don’t expect to read independent reporting about ICE activity — at least not if government officials get their way. Journalists and members of the public who report on ICE are increasingly under attack by officials who would prefer to silence them so government propaganda can fill the information void.

Threatening investigations on spurious grounds

The most recent example is the government’s attack on CNN for its reporting about an app called ICEBlock that alerts users to sightings of ICE agents nearby.

“Border czar” Tom Homan called on the Department of Justice to investigate CNN for its reporting, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said her agency is working with the DOJ on a potential prosecution of CNN for “encouraging people to avoid law enforcement activities and operations.”

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt also accused CNN of inciting violence against ICE officers, despite no evidence that ICEBlock, let alone CNN’s reporting on it, has caused any violence.

An app that reports on the presence of law enforcement officers in public isn’t illegal. ICEBlock’s creator told CNN that its purpose is to help people “avoid interactions with ICE,” and many people have legitimate reasons to want to avoid ICE, even if they’re not in the country illegally. At the risk of stating the obvious, journalism about ICEBlock is also legal and protected by the First Amendment.

But none of that has stopped administration officials from making threats, probably with the hope of intimidating CNN and others from reporting on public efforts to counter ICE. They had to have known that their baseless accusations would lead to even more people finding out about ICEBlock. But this isn’t about ICEBlock, it’s about chilling journalism.

Opening baseless investigations

And officials haven’t stopped at just threatening investigations for reporting on ICE. In February, the Federal Communications Commission actually opened an investigation into a California radio station, KCBS, after it reported on ICE raids happening in San Jose.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr said that broadcasting the locations of ICE agents violates FCC rules requiring licensees to operate in the “public interest,” even though such reporting is constitutionally protected. The fact that KCBS is owned by a nonprofit controlled by Democratic megadonor George Soros surely didn’t endear the station to Carr either.

Again, the clear intent of this investigation — and others by the FCC — is to chill news outlets from reporting on ICE and other topics the administration would prefer they avoid. KCBS, for instance, apparently removed the news report on the San Jose raids from its website after the FCC announced its investigation.

Transforming ICE into secret police

Some Republicans in Congress seem to also want in on the secrecy, by turning ICE into the secret police.

In June, Sen. Marsha Blackburn introduced the “Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act,” a bill that would make it a crime to name a federal law enforcement officer, including ICE officers, in certain circumstances. Sen. Lindsey Graham joined as a co-sponsor of the bill after grandstanding on social media about the need for legislation to prohibit the disclosure of the identities of ICE agents and other federal law enforcement officers.

While Blackburn’s bill requires the “intent to obstruct a criminal investigation or immigration enforcement operation” when naming an ICE officer, that will likely offer little protection when officials are constantly claiming that any public scrutiny of ICE obstructs its work. Those found guilty under the law could be imprisoned for five years.

ICE freezing out transparency

Finally, ICE itself is pushing for more and more secrecy. The agency often refuses or fails to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, leading news outlets and other requesters to sue. It illegally attempted to curtail congressional visits to ICE facilities, and then apparently quickly and quietly rescinded that guidance.

In May, ICE asked the San Francisco Standard to blur the faces of ICE agents whose pictures were taken in public during an operation at a courthouse. The Standard refused and then reported on the request under the headline, “The ICE agents disappearing your neighbors would like a little privacy, please.”

Last week, ICE agents in New York reportedly harassed journalists attempting to cover immigration court proceedings, including by photographing their press credentials.

Perhaps most disturbingly, ICE is currently attempting to deport Mario Guevara, a journalist known for documenting immigration raids, after he was arrested on unjustified charges while covering a “No Kings” protest in Georgia. Guevara now faces the prospect of being returned to El Salvador, a country he left after receiving death threats for his reporting.

He’s been granted bond, but the government alarmingly argued that his livestreaming of a protest justifies deporting him because he publicized law enforcement activities (which is what journalists are supposed to do).

In addition to using deportations to punish reporting, the administration is also targeting opinion writing. It’s currently attempting to deport Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk over an op-ed she co-wrote.

These potential deportations send a chilling message to other journalists who’ve fled to the United States from repressive countries. As one reporter told The New Yorker about Guevara’s case, “Today, it was Mario, but tomorrow it could be any one of us.” And while noncitizen journalists are the easiest targets for now, it’s abundantly clear that the government would like to criminalize journalists it doesn’t like, regardless of the journalists’ residency status.

Yet many journalists — like those at the Standard — are refusing to be chilled. Reporters, many at smaller news outlets, have kept reporting on ICE raids in their communities, often relying on video or photos of ICE agents in public captured by the public and posted on social media—videos that Homan and Leavitt would probably claim should be illegal.

Continuing to report and inform the public is exactly the right response to the government’s attempts to intimidate the press from reporting on ICE. But journalists can’t push back on these chilling tactics alone.

“See something, say something” shouldn’t just be a motto for the security state. When you see these chilling tactics employed by the government against the free press, speak up against it—to other journalists, on op-ed pages and in letters to the editor, to ICE, to your state and local representatives, and to Congress.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Paramount Global, which owns CBS News, has reportedly decided to settle President Donald Trump’s frivolous lawsuit over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with his former presidential rival Kamala Harris.

Virtually no one aside from Trump’s hangers-on believes the case had any merit, let alone $16 million worth. There was no rational reason for Paramount to settle — aside from paying for favoritism, including over its planned merger with Skydance Media.

Legendary First Amendment lawyers Floyd Abrams and James Goodale each recall a time when news outlets were owned by news companies that had both economic and principled interests in defending the First Amendment. They’re alarmed by what they’re seeing today.

“The agreement of Paramount to pay any settlement amount to Donald Trump ... is an ominous blow to press freedom in our nation.”

Abrams, who represented The New York Times during the Pentagon Papers case and had a hand in countless other seminal First Amendment rulings, told Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) via email that “the agreement of Paramount to pay any settlement amount to Donald Trump based on a ‘60 Minutes’ broadcast that was both journalistically responsible and fully protected by the First Amendment is an ominous blow to press freedom in our nation.”

As Abrams noted in a letter to the Times, despite the significant challenges the Trump administration presents for media outlets, “it is not too much for the public to ask of the press that it remain vigilant in its coverage of him and militant in defense of itself.”

Goodale, the Times vice president, vice chairman, and general counsel from 1963 to 1980, led the newspaper’s resistance to the Nixon administration’s war on the press. He told FPF in an email, “It’s a sad day for journalism in the United States when the corporate owners of major news broadcasters are unwilling to fight back against baseless lawsuits by politicians.”

“It’s a sad day for journalism in the United States when the corporate owners of major news broadcasters are unwilling to fight back against baseless lawsuits by politicians.”

Goodale reiterated his view, which he also expressed in a prior interview with FPF, that businesspeople unwilling to safeguard reporters’ rights should choose a different industry. “Operating a news outlet is a serious responsibility and those whose other financial interests won’t allow them to stand up for the First Amendment should stay out of the news business.”

Seth Stern, FPF’s director of advocacy, added that Paramount’s settlement and other capitulations by major media outlets “put to rest the myth that billionaires and corporate conglomerates will refrain from meddling with the editorial affairs of news publishers they own. CBS and other corporate-owned news outlets are full of great journalists who deserve ownership that won’t throw them under the bus to make a buck. Americans concerned by these developments should support independent news outlets willing to stand up for their journalists’ First Amendment rights so that our free press can survive this administration.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Paramount Global announced late Tuesday that it will pay $16 million to settle an entirely frivolous and unconstitutional lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris.

It’s been widely reported that the settlement is intended to clear the way for federal approval of the sale of Paramount to Skydance Media, which will result in a multimillion-dollar payout to Paramount Chair Shari Redstone.

Three U.S. senators previously launched an investigation into whether paying off Trump through a settlement to obtain approval of the sale would violate federal bribery and other laws, and the California Senate opened a similar investigation.

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

Today is a dark day for press freedom. Paramount’s spineless decision to settle Trump’s baseless and patently unconstitutional lawsuit is an insult to the journalists of ‘60 Minutes’ and an invitation to Trump to continue targeting other news outlets. Each time a company cowers and surrenders to Trump’s demands it only emboldens him to do it again.

It will be remembered as one of the most shameful capitulations by the press to a president in history.

But we are not done fighting. We’ve already filed a shareholder information demand and are sending a second demand today to uncover information about this decision. With that information, we will continue to pursue our legal options to stop this affront to Paramount shareholders, CBS journalists, and the First Amendment. Paramount directors should be held accountable and we will do all we can to make that happen.

FPF is a Paramount Global shareholder, and you can read our letter notifying Paramount of our plans to take legal action in the event of a settlement with Trump here. You can read a previous statement from our counsel here, and our recent demand for information to which we are entitled as shareholders here.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Long before he was the Freedom of Information Act director at The Washington Post, Nate Jones was a curious college student with a penchant for Able Archer 83.

Looking to learn more about the 1983 NATO war game, he ventured to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and sifted through a box inscribed “military exercises.” The folders inside were empty and classified.

“You can do FOIA, but good luck,” an archivist told him. “So instead of giving up, I kind of got a little angry,” he recalled.

Jones funneled that FOIA frustration into fanaticism. Years later, he acquired the documents his college self had yearned for and eventually wrote a book about the war scenario based on them.

But the lesson he learned transcended Able Archer 83. Access to even one unclassified document from the jump is all it would have taken to start a chain reaction of declassification for Jones much sooner.

“If the dang Reagan Library had just given me the records right away, it would have helped me file tens of thousands of more public records requests,” he explained.

To understand how FOIA requests and public records like those ultimately obtained by Jones can be used to fight government secrecy and improve our communities, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) hosted an online webinar June 24 with Jones, MuckRock CEO Michael Morisy, and investigative journalist and author Miranda Spivack.

Morisy, whose organization has helped file over 156,000 records requests and led to the release of over 11 million pages, said the key to a successful FOIA lies in its preparation. As a starting point, he advises requesters to “step inside the mindset of a bureaucrat” and envision the request from their perspective.

“Where are the records that you care about? How would you describe them? How would they work? Who would have access to them? And then use that to guide that public records officer to exactly what you want,” he said.

Spivack — who recently authored “Backroom Deals in Our Backyards: How Government Secrecy Harms Our Communities and the Local Heroes Fighting Back” — said it’s also important to consider the system of records requests as a whole, beyond the individuals working within them.

Unlike at the federal level, she said, there isn’t a constituency for transparency at the state and local levels “until somebody bumps into a problem.” That can stifle requesters.

“There are a lot of groups at the state and local level that are pro transparency, but I think they really have to get into communities and have to translate for people why it matters,” added Spivack. “Not even when you need it, but before you need it, why it should matter that your government should be more transparent.”

Still, there are cases where a local or state government records office can provide more information than a federal one, which is why Spivack recommends filing requests with both parties when it’s appropriate to do so.

Jones concurred. “It’s a great strategy to always file with as many agencies as you can.”

Another helpful strategy is to replicate prior successful records requests, he said.

“Don’t reinvent the wheel. Have an agency release more of what they already have released,” Jones said. Many reporters, including those at the Post, use MuckRock to find examples of past successful requests and duplicate them to save time and increase their odds of a successful request, he added.

As the Trump administration slashes FOIA offices and prunes the National Archives and Records Administration’s budget, one audience question, from open government advocate Alex Howard, addressed the possibility of insulating FOIA offices from political influence and firings.

Jones suggests modeling FOIA offices more closely on the Inspector General’s Office, which could add pressure on people in the agency “to release the things to the public in a timely manner.”

“So if you want to call it insulation, that would be fine, but I would rather call it empowerment,” he added.

Looking ahead, Morisy said that the encroachment of corporate interests in records requests is contributing to the “hollowing out” of government competence and could be clogging up the system. Instead of fighting together, transparency constituencies are picking individual battles, he said, which waters down their ability to enact change within the system.

“I think they’re losing, which I think is a big, big problem,” Morisy said.

Still, Jones is optimistic about the system, even if it’s far from perfect. He encourages requesters to file weekly, if not daily, to open the tap on a consistent flow of releases. Following that ethos could yield “one or two or three good documents a week,” he said.

“Be a proactive requester, not a reactive requester,” Jones said. “If you plant your acorns, the trees will grow.”

Earlier this month, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and the Society of Professional Journalists led a letter to Steve Catalano, chair of the Greene County Board of Supervisors, objecting to a policy that reportedly prohibited county employees from speaking to the press and required them to label anything they provide to the press as “opinion.”

In response, the county claimed that the policy does not exist, despite several county employees reportedly telling local newspaper The Daily Progress that they could not speak to the media about public records requests they’d denied due to the policy.

We don’t know why county employees would be “confused” by a nonexistent gag policy if such a policy had not been communicated to them but, to resolve any confusion, here is the email chain that includes the denial of the policy’s existence.

We hope any reporters whose requests for information are denied underthe supposed policy will show their sources this email, and that any Greene County employees who are confronted for not abiding by the policy will show it to their supervisors.

We note that even the above email denying the existence of the policy acknowledged that it is the county’s position that “When staff are asked about the County’s official position on policy matters, they are to represent the majority position of the Board or defer the question to the Chairman.”

We informed the County of the ambiguity of that position and the need to put its rules in writing, so that there won’t be further confusion if they’re constitutional, and so those impacted can challenge them if they’re not. As you can see, they said they would — we’ll hold them to it and will keep you posted.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 94th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like. More press freedom news below.

Paramount should abandon mediation with Trump. So should the mediator

Earlier this week, CBS News filed a strong brief outlining why President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over the editing of its 2024 interview with Kamala Harris is completely frivolous and an affront to the First Amendment.

But just days later, The Wall Street Journal reported that a mediator had proposed CBS owner Paramount Global settle the suit for $20 million. It’s been reported that Paramount — believing the Trump administration will block its merger with Skydance Media if it doesn’t settle – had previously offered $15 million, which Trump declined, demanding at least $25 million.

We wrote about why the unnamed mediator needs to consider their ethical obligations to not facilitate what may amount to an illegal bribe. Read more here.

Stop prosecuting journalist who exposed antisemitism

The Trump administration loves to position itself as an enemy of antisemitism. But it has continued its predecessor’s legally dubious prosecution of journalist Tim Burke, who found outtakes of a 2022 antisemitic rant by Ye, formerly Kanye West, that Fox News cut from a Tucker Carlson interview.

We’ve written before about why the government’s legal theories are nonsense, but there’s also the issue of why two presidential administrations thought it was a wise use of prosecutorial discretion to go after someone who clearly did a public good.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Advocacy Director Seth Stern, along with Bobby Block of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, urged the administration to drop the case in USA Today. Read more here.

Putting public records to use

Federal agencies are closing their Freedom of Information Act offices, disappearing information from their websites, no longer creating records, and possibly even inappropriately destroying them. At the local level, we’re seeing legislation introduced across various states that would make it easier for local governments to ignore requests they don’t like.

To discuss how the public can use public records requests to fight back against mounting secrecy, we hosted a webinar June 24 with Washington Post FOIA Director Nate Jones, MuckRock CEO Michael Morisy, investigative journalist and author Miranda Spivack, and FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper. Watch it here.

What’s going on in Greene County?

Earlier this month, FPF and the Society of Professional Journalists led a letter to Steve Catalano, chair of the Greene County Board of Supervisors, objecting to a policy that reportedly prohibited county employees from speaking to the press and required them to label anything they provide to the press as “opinion.”

In response, the county claimed that the policy does not exist, despite several county employees reportedly telling local newspaper The Daily Progress that they could not speak to the media about public records requests they’d denied due to the policy.

To resolve any confusion among reporters and county employees under the impression that there’s a gag order, we posted the exchange on our website. Read more here.

What we’re reading

‘They’re not breathing’: Inside the chaos of ICE detention center 911 calls (Wired). This important story is available to read for free, thanks to Wired’s partnership with FPF to unpaywall FOIA-based reporting. Other outlets should follow suit.

DeKalb solicitor-general dismisses charges against journalist Mario Guevara (Atlanta Civic Circle). Dropping charges is nice, but too little, too late after they handed the journalist (who has a legal work authorization) over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

‘Giving information to the enemy’: Israel’s ban on Al Jazeera extends to foreign broadcasters (The Dissenter). It was obvious from the outset that Israel’s Al Jazeera ban was a pretext for further censorship. The same goes for U.S. efforts to crack down on foreign media.

The Paramount risk in settling Trump’s lawsuit: ‘Bribery’? (The Wall Street Journal). The Journal’s editorial board writes that, instead of caving to Trump, Paramount should “win the legal case [and] vindicate its CBS journalists and the First Amendment.”

White House to limit intelligence sharing, skip Gabbard at Senate Iran briefing (The Washington Post). The public should know if the Trump administration is lying about its Iran strike. Leaks undermining the administration’s claims aren’t an excuse for secrecy — they are a reason to declassify the underlying records.

Earlier this week, CBS News filed a strong brief outlining why President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over the editing of its 2024 interview with Kamala Harris is completely frivolous and an affront to the First Amendment.

But just days later, The Wall Street Journal reported that a mediator had proposed CBS owner Paramount Global settle the suit for $20 million. It’s been reported that Paramount — believing the Trump administration will block its merger with Skydance Media if it doesn’t settle – had previously offered $15 million, which Trump declined, demanding at least $25 million.

A mediator’s job is to find a compromise number, so, from that perspective, it’s easy to understand why they’d propose $20 million. But mediators are still under an obligation not to facilitate criminality. And, as both federal and state lawmakers have said, a settlement by Paramount may amount to illegal bribery.

The Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators — adopted by the American Bar Association, American Arbitration Association, and Association for Conflict Resolution — provide as follows: “If a mediation is being used to further criminal conduct, a mediator should take appropriate steps including, if necessary, postponing, withdrawing from or terminating the mediation.” The ethics guidelines of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services go a step further: “A mediator should withdraw from the process if the mediation is being used to further illegal conduct.“

The mediator’s identity hasn’t been publicly disclosed, but presumably, they’re a lawyer, also bound by the rules of professional conduct. Those rules also include obligations to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and not facilitate illegal conduct. Violations are punishable by discipline up to disbarment. That said, it should not require citation of specific rules and standards to establish that it’s improper to facilitate the abuse of the legal system to funnel bribes disguised as settlements to politicians.

Everyone knows the case is not worth $20 million, or even 20 cents, in terms of legal merit. It’s beyond frivolous — and that’s saying something given the myriad frivolous lawsuits Trump has filed. As Paramount’s own lawyers note, Trump often doesn’t even attempt to cite cases supporting his cockamamie legal theories or refuting the decades of First Amendment precedent that obviously protects CBS’ editorial judgment. Any first-year law student can see this case should be thrown out at the first opportunity. It’s a joke.

“If a mediation is being used to further criminal conduct, a mediator should take appropriate steps including, if necessary, postponing, withdrawing from or terminating the mediation.”

Yet it’s been widely reported that Paramount directors believe they need to pay up if they want Trump’s Federal Communications Commission to approve the Skydance merger. Possibly the only thing stopping them is the fact that the directors are reportedly concerned that settling could put it at risk of liability for bribery.

They should be worried. In addition to the lawmakers that have launched probes into potential criminality, as Paramount shareholders and defenders of press freedom, we’ve threatened to bring a shareholder derivative suit against Paramount directors and officers if the company pays Trump off, and retained counsel to do so on our behalf.

Any settlement agreed to by Paramount to facilitate its merger is not only tantamount to bribery but throws its own storied news outlet under the bus and invites Trump to extort countless other news corporations as soon as the check clears.

The Wall Street Journal reported that directors at Paramount have been mulling over a number it can offer that reduces the odds of a bribery case. When a party to a mediation is calculating settlement numbers not based on the merits of the lawsuit and cost of litigation but on the maximum it can pay without officers and directors getting indicted, that’s a gigantic red flag that no ethical mediator should ignore (as if investigations from federal and state lawmakers aren’t enough of a warning).

We hope the mediator is taking their obligations seriously. And we also hope Paramount directors are reading their own lawyers’ legal briefs. Editing interviews is something news outlets across the political spectrum do every hour of every day (even Trump-aligned Fox News hosts have openly acknowledged that). As Paramount’s lawyers wrote, if this case were to go forward, it “would amount to green-lighting thousands of consumer claims brought by individuals who merely disagree with a news organization’s editorial choices.”

The same can be said for if Paramount settles. Trump sued The Des Moines Register right after ABC owner Disney shamefully settled with Trump earlier this year. If he is gifted $20 million (and no, it doesn’t help matters if the money goes to his purported library foundation) for disliking the way an interview was edited, there’s no telling how many news outlets he’ll target next.

The immigration raid protests that began on June 6, 2025, in Los Angeles and spread to other cities across the U.S. have shown, once again, that protests are one of the most dangerous places for journalists in America.

As of today, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented more than 20 press freedom incidents involving journalists covering protests in California, most of them instigated by law enforcement, and is investigating numerous others in California and other states.

Demonstrations have lessened recently, but they’re likely to resume as the Trump administration continues to push unpopular immigration raids in Democratic cities. Journalists — as well as protesters — remain vulnerable.

When the police detain, assault, and attack journalists covering protests, it can prevent them from reporting the news and the public from learning about newsworthy events. That’s why we all must condemn police attacks on the press and take action to stop them in the future.

If you don’t want to see the authorities abuse journalists and the First Amendment during protests, here are five things you can do to help.

1. Support local journalism.

Many of the journalists covering recent protests have been freelancers or reporters for smaller, local outlets. They could undoubtedly use your financial support. In recent years, many local news sources have struggled or even shuttered completely because they simply can’t make enough money to support themselves.

Your monetary support is what keeps the lights on and pays for the journalists who report from protests. Consider buying a subscription to news outlets that are sending journalists to cover protests in your community, or subscribing or donating to freelance journalists.

In Los Angeles, journalists for the small news outlets L.A. Taco and The Southlander have faced press freedom aggressions while covering recent protests, as have freelancers like Joey Scott. Journalists at commercial broadcasters like KTLA, KVEA, and KNBC, and larger outlets like the Los Angeles Times, The New Yorker, CNN, and the New York Post have also experienced press freedom incidents.

If you can’t support local outlets monetarily, you can also contribute to them through letters to the editor and op-eds making clear that you value their work and want them to be able to report safely. Even social media posts and reposts help.

2. Support injured journalists and journalists’ legal defense funds.

In addition to providing financial support to news outlets, individual journalists injured by law enforcement could use your help, as could the legal defense services that assist them.

For example, independent photojournalist Nick Stern suffered a severe injury at the recent LA protests. Stern is recovering from emergency surgery after being shot in the leg with a crowd-control munition. His friends started a GoFundMe campaign to help cover his medical bills.

In addition, The Intercept, in partnership with CalMatters and the National Press Photographers Association, has launched a rapid response fund to provide financial help for emergency medical support, among other costs, for journalists covering protests in LA.

Other journalists will need legal help to respond to unjustified arrests. The Intercept’s rapid response fund can be applied to legal expenses, as can the Society of Professional Journalists’ Legal Defense Fund. Both groups accept donations.

Another organization you may want to support is the Los Angeles Press Club, which, with help from another group worthy of your donations, the First Amendment Coalition, is suing local law enforcement for violating journalists’ First Amendment rights.

3. Film or record attacks and arrests of journalists, if it’s safe to do so.

Of course, financial support isn’t the only way you can help. If you witness law enforcement arresting or attacking journalists covering a protest and it is safe for you to do so, you should consider recording the incident.

Creating a record of journalists’ arrests and assaults can help hold police accountable. Publishing videos or photographs deters misconduct by bringing negative attention to police. Recordings, pictures, and witness statements can also be useful in future lawsuits. So, if possible, you should give copies of your recordings and contact information directly to the journalist or their news outlets.

Even if you see others recording, your recording may capture a useful angle that rebuts false narratives. For example, in this video an officer adamantly accuses ABC’s Matt Guttman of having provoked an altercation by “touching” him, but this video shows that it was the officer who pushed Guttman, who, at most, reflexively grabbed the officer’s arm to steady himself after being assaulted.

The public has a First Amendment right to record police in the performance of their official duties in public, including at protests. Of course, the existence of that right doesn’t necessarily mean it’s safe to exercise it. Police have been known to attack or arrest people who film them or take their pictures, and other laws may allow police to require non-journalists to disperse or move back. You should assess your personal risk and the laws in your jurisdiction before deciding to take pictures or videos of police arresting or attacking journalists.

4. Submit requests for public records and bodycam footage.

Even if you can’t document police action against journalists at protests while they’re underway, you may be able to unearth valuable documentation after the fact using public records requests.

If your state classifies bodycam footage as a public record, requests for police body-worn camera footage from protests could be particularly useful. (Even if your state does not consider bodycam footage a public record, you may be able to request it under a specific provision in state law governing such footage.) In the past, bodycam footage has shown police targeting journalists at demonstrations or ignoring reporter’s statements that they are press.

You don’t have to be a journalist to submit a records request. Organizations like MuckRock have easy-to-follow tools and guidance for submitting and tracking requests, and examples of requests from others that you can crib from.

5. Call on lawmakers to end qualified immunity.

Finally, one of the reasons that police feel emboldened to violate First Amendment rights of both protesters and journalists is because they know they can get away with it. A legal doctrine known as qualified immunity often protects police and other government officials from civil claims that they’ve violated a person’s constitutional rights. Police have invoked qualified immunity in cases brought by journalists alleging violations of their First Amendment rights, sometimes successfully and sometimes not.

After the police murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests, many called for an end to qualified immunity. Unfortunately, that reform effort has largely stalled.

Today, a few states ban or limit the ability of the police to invoke qualified immunity. Congress has introduced, but not passed, a bill to end qualified immunity. If you don’t want police to be able to attack protesters and journalists with impunity, contact your state and federal representatives and tell them to end qualified immunity.

What all five of these ideas have in common is that they call on you to exercise your First Amendment rights to protect journalists who are using theirs. Whether you’re supporting journalists’ work, documenting abuses, or contacting your representatives, your voice matters. With your help, journalists can and will continue to report the truth.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 87th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like, and journalists covering protests are still facing aggression from law enforcement. Read on to learn how you can help.

Five ways to help journalists covering protests

Like other protests, recent immigration raid protests in Los Angeles and elsewhere have proven to be dangerous places for journalists. Reporters and protestors are especially vulnerable to attacks by the police. In response, we’ve put together five ideas for how anyone who cares about press freedom and doesn’t want to see the authorities abuse the First Amendment can help.

From providing financial support to reporters and news outlets to filming attacks when it’s safe to filing public records requests, there are many things people can do to stand up for journalists and freedom of the press in this moment. With your help, journalists can and will continue to report the truth. Read more here.

And a shoutout to the California journalists and press freedom groups taking the Los Angeles Police Department to court over its abuses.

Remembering Daniel Ellsberg

Monday marked the second anniversary of the passing of legendary whistleblower, anti-war hero, and FPF co-founder Daniel Ellsberg. His courageous decision to leak the Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971 led to the most important Supreme Court case for press freedom in the century.

Read the moving tribute that our executive director, Trevor Timm, wrote for the Guardian after Ellsberg’s passing. You can also check out The Classifieds to see the work that Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy, has been doing.

And if you’re considering following in Ellsberg’s footsteps, here’s a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” about how the public can safely share information with the press and use available tools to do so, featuring FPF’s Chief Information Security Officer and Director of Digital Security Harlo Holmes and SecureDrop Staff Engineer Kevin O’Gorman.

Agencies hijack the ‘public interest’ to attack free speech

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr has turned the investigatory power of the agency against the press, while the Department of Justice is pursuing investigations into nonprofits connected to left-leaning causes.

One hook both are using to intrude on First Amendment activity is requirements that broadcast licensees and nonprofits operate in the “public interest” or for the “public benefit,” which the Trump administration interprets to mean kowtowing to its political agenda. To learn more, we spoke to FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez and nonprofit lawyer Ezra Reese. Read more and watch the conversation here.

Preparing devices for travel through a US border

Our digital security team at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), in collaboration with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, put together a detailed checklist to help journalists prepare for transit through a U.S. port of entry while preserving the confidentiality of their most sensitive information, such as unpublished reporting materials or source contact information. Read it here. FPF and its partners are also conducting two in-person training programs for journalists and freelancers who cover migration and events on the U.S. border with Mexico.

Public records shouldn’t be blocked by copyright

FPF joined an amicus brief led by Americans for Prosperity in a case that raises the increasingly common issue of whether the Copyright Act allows government agencies to withhold public records. In short, it doesn’t. Read the brief here.

Pushing back on secrecy through public records

Join us on June 24 at 1 p.m. ET for an online conversation about using public records to push back on government secrecy, featuring Nate Jones, Freedom of Information Act Director at The Washington Post, Michael Morisy, CEO of MuckRock, investigative journalist and author Miranda Spivack and FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy, Lauren Harper. Register here.

What we’re reading

Arrested in Georgia protest, immigrant journalist now in ICE custody (WRDW). There is absolutely no reason to deport a longtime journalist who is authorized to work in the United States. The Dekalb County Sheriff’s Office should not have released Mario Guevara to ICE.

Australian deported from US says he was ‘targeted’ due to writing on pro-Palestine student protests (The Guardian). The administration is using every tool at its disposal to retaliate against journalists and others who expose facts it wants kept secret or hold opinions it doesn’t like.

Trump to again extend TikTok’s reprieve from U.S. ban (The New York Times). Isn’t it weird how all the national security hawks have gone silent about the imminent, serious threat to the U.S. that TikTok supposedly poses? It’s almost like it was BS the whole time.

Mayor Adams says he’s banning Daily News reporter from pressers for ‘calling out’ questions (New York Daily News). What can we say about Eric Adams that a grand jury hasn’t already said? Not much, but here’s something: He’s a thin-skinned bully who apparently can’t handle unexpected questions from the press without throwing a tantrum.

Israeli strike on Iranian state TV fills studio with dust and debris during live broadcast (Associated Press). News outlets, even propagandist ones, are not legitimate military targets. Bombing a studio during a live broadcast will not impede Iran’s nuclear program. It’s not the work of the world’s “most moral army” and is not something the U.S. should support.

In a Sacramento federal courtroom, immigration hearings evoked the Dark Ages (Sacramento Bee). “At a time when there is great public interest in ICE and the Trump Administration’s plan for mass deportations, keeping the public and the press at bay will only stoke mistrust and is in no one’s best interest.”

Court dismisses father’s lawsuit against Burlington newspaper over lack of basketball coverage (VTDigger). The worst part is that this random Vermont basketball dad’s nonsense lawsuit objectively isn’t any more frivolous than legal theories advanced by our president.

From Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers to Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency surveillance disclosures, whistleblowers have been behind some of the most impactful revelations in American history.

Both Ellsberg and Snowden risked their safety and personal freedom to leak documents to the press. While whistleblowers face similar risks today, they can protect their identities using modern whistleblowing platforms like SecureDrop — a project of Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) — and anonymity systems like the Tor Network.

To answer questions about how the public can safely share information with the press and use available tools to do so, FPF’s Chief Information Security Officer and Director of Digital Security Harlo Holmes and SecureDrop Staff Engineer Kevin O’Gorman engaged with Reddit’s r/IAmA community members on June 10 in a Q&A session.

The following select questions from various Reddit users, and Holmes and O’Gorman’s answers, have been edited for brevity and clarity. You can view the full thread here.

If I were a whistleblower with top-secret information, how would I get it to the newspapers without getting caught? What’s the high-level process like?

Harlo: There are a lot of variables that you’d have to consider and would only know of once you’re in that position! But, please know that whistleblowing is a hugely heroic act and there are always risks. Not only is there the possibility of “getting caught,” as you say, there is the prospect of retaliation down the line, loss of livelihood, and a lot of trauma that comes with making such a huge decision.

Other higher-level processes have to do with the aftermath. In a newsroom, journalists and their editorial team deliberate a lot about how best to write the story with what the whistleblower has supplied them. This may mean weighing matters of security, reputation, and the protection of everyone involved.

About a year ago, Signal introduced phone number privacy and usernames, effectively enabling Signal users to be (almost) anonymous if they want to. And major news outlets like The New York Times and The Guardian accept tips through Signal. Can you tell me how SecureDrop is more secure and better at protecting the privacy of the whistleblower?

Harlo: They’re both good. It’s all about “right-sizing” your tipline support. SecureDrop can be beyond the budget or bandwidth for some small newsmakers, and that’s why we at FPF can help in building a solution that fits. Fundamentally, a newsroom should ensure confidentiality and encryption. Both tools will get you there.

Kevin: Further to Harlo’s point, Signal’s approach is definitely better at scale and in general, while SecureDrop is designed to solve a more specific problem. That said, SecureDrop has some advantages for leaking to the press.

Signal requires a dedicated app, which leaves traces of its use. A source facing potential seizure and examination of their devices will leave fewer traces using Tor Browser. SecureDrop relies on an airgap to protect its decryption key, which protects journalists and sources by quarantining file submissions and makes it harder to target journalists with malware.

There are always trade-offs in play between security and ease of use, Signal is a solid choice and, from a purely cryptographic perspective, there’s no faulting it.

The Democrats released their own “whistleblowing” form a few months back for federal workers. That seems like a supremely bad idea, yes? It just looks like a Google form. Are there any big failures that you are aware of?

Harlo: Not my show, not my monkeys. We work with the press and are restricted from working with political parties. That said, we can share some tips regarding safer whistleblowing practices that anyone can adopt if they’re building a platform for intake!

First off, “be available everywhere.” In the past, whistleblowers have been burned because their web histories pointed directly to when and where they reached out to their journalist. So, use the commons of the internet to give people the information they need to securely establish first contact. If you’re running a tipline advertisement on your own website, use an encrypted and safe URL that will not indicate that the public has visited your explicit whistleblowing instructions.

Third-party services like Google are not your friend for the most sensitive of data. Google can definitely be subpoenaed for all the juicy whistleblower details. Find an alternative. Make your submission portals available over Tor, too! Visiting an onion address can make a huge difference.

Lastly, encrypt all the things. This means data in transit as well as at rest. If you are going to plop the next Panama Papers on your hard drive, encrypt that computer like your life depends on it.

As we have recently seen in some dramatic examples, all of the world’s encryption can’t help if the users misuse it. When you help news orgs set up SecureDrop, doesn’t this basically mean that you have to be giving them constant support to them and to whistleblowers on how to use it?

Kevin: This is the gig :)

By design, we have no contact with whistleblowers using SecureDrop. A key property of the system is that it is self-hosted with no subpoenable third parties in the loop, including us.

But we do journalist digital security training, publish guides for whistleblowers, and work with newsrooms to ensure they’re providing prospective sources with good operational security guidelines via their sites.

On the administration side, once set up, SecureDrop instances are actually pretty low-maintenance in terms of support — most updates are automated, for example. We run a support portal available to all administrators, but probably only about half of instances ever need to reach out. The system’s applications do need frequent security updates, and while the codebase is mature at this stage we do regular audits and make changes as a result, so there is an ongoing development effort there.

What do you all think about the security of good ol’ postal mail for whistleblowers, especially if they have a hard drive or doc trove to share? Is it always better to go with a secure digital solution or is there still a utility to the old-fashioned tactics like mail and IRL dead drops?

Kevin: A lot of newsrooms still offer postal mail as an option for tips, and there are definitely cases where it makes sense. If you’re dropping multiple gigabytes worth of files for example, systems using Tor are going to be slow and prone to network issues. (SecureDrop has a hard limit of 500MB on individual submissions, partially for this reason).

But it’s important that sources remember they still need to take steps to protect their anonymity when using postal mail. Obviously, adding a return address that is associated with the source in any way is a bad idea, as is mailing it from a post office or a mailbox somewhere you spend any amount of time. So sources should be posting their tips from mailboxes somewhere they don’t normally go.