Freedom of the Press

The police raid of the Marion County Record’s newsroom on Aug. 11, 2023, shocked the country but proved to be just one of a series of alarming attacks on local journalism that year. It was also a preview of how lawless and incompetent governments can use strained constructions of the law as pretext to retaliate against journalists they dislike, as we now see not only in small-town America but at the federal level. As the death of Record co-owner Joan Meyer the next day tragically proved, by the time justice takes its course — if it ever does — the damage has often already been done.

We asked investigative journalist Jessica McMaster to reflect on her award-winning coverage of the raid for KSHB-TV in Kansas City, Missouri. The interview is below. You can also read about or watch our discussion with Record publisher Eric Meyer earlier this year.

On a Friday afternoon in 2023, news broke of a police raid of the Marion County Record newsroom and its publisher Eric Meyer’s home. Did you realize right away that this needed to be not just a statewide story but a national one?

I realized right away this was a big story. Once the news broke that Joan Meyer died, I knew we had to go to Marion — the backlash was immediate and the responses were coming in from across the country.

Over the course of many months, it became clear that the raid wasn’t a random instance of police overresponding to a citizen complaint. Details began to emerge about local officials, including the police chief, Gideon Cody, and their conduct before, during, and after the raid — even before coming to Marion. Plenty of great local journalists did amazing work covering the story, but you seemed to get a large share of the big scoops. Without divulging any confidences, how were you able to pull it off, especially being based in Kansas City, not particularly close to Marion?

I worked a lot of hours. In the beginning, we stayed overnight in Marion. After that, it was a lot of driving back and forth, while taking calls from sources at all hours of the night. I’d been a journalist long enough to know that a story this big doesn’t die down for a few weeks. We made the commitment to drive the five-hour round trip daily. I didn’t always know what our angle would be, but I knew I’d find it.

“If journalists are not willing to report on the ongoing attacks against the free press, who will?”

Talk about the level of transparency — or lack thereof — that you encountered from government officials, both in Marion and statewide, during your reporting on the raid. What were some of the challenges you needed to overcome, in terms of secrecy and accessing information that was of public interest?

Gideon Cody wasn’t talking. The county attorney wasn’t talking. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation was saying very little. Almost immediately, it had the appearance that everyone involved in this was covering their own tail — and of course they were. This was a huge mess. We leaned on the gift of open records laws to get most of our information. Getting emails and text messages helped piece the parts of the story together that those in power wanted to remain a secret. We knew they’d try and block us — we were prepared to fight back. There were times when we had to get our attorneys involved when information was being withheld. On a story like this, the details don’t reveal the truth all at once. It trickles out over time. It’s always fun to look back and see how it all comes together — one information request, or leak, at a time.

At Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), we were glued to your X feed for real-time updates. We probably weren’t the only ones. Can you talk about the challenge of breaking news on social media while also investigating the bigger stories?

This is one of my favorite parts about covering a big story — connecting with people in real time. I had people from other countries sending me emails and tweeting to me that they were following me for updates. I was not asked to use social media in real time by my employer — it’s just something I’d become accustomed to doing since early on in my career. With Marion, we were getting updates constantly — social media made it easy to get that information out quickly. I don’t see using social media as a challenge — I think it’s a tool to connect with our followers more authentically and bring them along on the journey with us. Of course, if I have to get my broadcast script in urgently, or I have to be on camera within the next few minutes, I’ll take a break from providing live updates and come back to it once I’m done.

Were there any stories you were able to break while covering the raid that you felt were particularly important to the public’s understanding of what went on?

We broke so many stories over the first couple of months. I remember driving to Marion during that first week of coverage. I didn’t know what the story would be on this particular day. It was our plan to find the story once we got there. About an hour into our trip, while driving past a cornfield, my cellphone rings and it’s the attorney for Marion County Record. He tips me off that the county attorney has revoked the search warrants. He gave me a two-minute head start before he planned to tell all the other reporters. This was arguably the biggest break in the case — it’s the first time officials publicly admitted the raids shouldn’t have happened. This squashed any doubts of wrongdoing on behalf of the newspaper — and people, especially in Marion — did have their doubts. So, of course, I’m scrambling to get this information out there. Minutes after I broke the news on X, the county attorney sent a press release to all newsrooms with his statement on revoking the warrants.

“It’s hard for a lot of us to grasp that so many people, in positions of power, failed in such spectacular fashion to do their jobs.”

What insights did you come away with about the state of press freedom in Kansas and in the United States?

This was a massive failure by several people within the justice system. I think that’s what’s so shocking about this entire thing — most of us assume a police chief would understand press freedom laws. If a police chief doesn’t, we’d assume a county attorney would. If a county attorney doesn’t, we’d assume a district judge would. If no one understands these laws — surely someone will look it up. The amount of layers Gideon Cody’s attack on the newspaper survived is astonishing. What did all these people, who are supposed to understand the law, think the response would be? I think it’s hard for a lot of us to grasp that so many people, in positions of power, failed in such spectacular fashion to do their jobs.

Do you think the raid had an ongoing chilling effect on journalism?

I think the chilling effect comes from a culmination of attacks that have been launched against the free press over the past several years. We’ve seen this play out in other instances, during protests for example, where police assault or arrest journalists for doing their jobs. I think Marion was another example of that.

Despite your award-winning work on the raid and all the other great work you’ve done, less than two years after the raid, your position at KSHB-TV, Kansas City’s NBC affiliate, was eliminated. What does that say about the state of the news industry and whether local investigative reporting is valued these days?

The company I worked for always valued investigative journalism — it’s why I stayed in my position for a decade. I think what we’re seeing is that many local newsrooms are becoming more and more risk averse. I personally felt this shift over the past few years. When newsrooms operate from a place of fear, it’s very difficult for reporters to do their job, especially investigative reporters who, by nature, do more high-risk, accountability-focused stories.

What’s next for you? I saw that your X post about the layoff said your time as an investigative journalist was coming to an end. Are you done with journalism or are you going to look for a way back in? And why?

I love journalism. I believe in its purpose. I believe in its power. We need solid journalists who aren’t afraid to hold the powerful accountable. That said, I don’t see myself stepping back into a newsroom. At least not anytime soon. I took the summer off to focus on my kids and reflect on what I want to do next, which has been such a gift. I plan to keep writing and creating content for something I believe in.

Journalists often feel like covering press freedom stories is difficult, because they’re making themselves the story or because their objectivity will be questioned, for example. What do you say to that, and what’s your advice to journalists and editors wondering whether it’s a good idea to report on press freedom violations?

Stick to the facts. That’s my advice. While I didn’t initially know why police raided the newspaper, I knew this was fundamentally wrong. I knew police should’ve served a subpoena, as opposed to busting down the doors. I knew the free press has protections, both locally and federally. All of that gave me grounds to cover this story. It can be uncomfortable reporting on something so closely tied to our personal lives — but if journalists are not willing to report on the ongoing attacks against the free press, who will?

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 136th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like, and the 55th day that Mario Guevara has been imprisoned for covering a protest. Read on for more, and click here to subscribe to our other newsletters.

Paramount’s $36 million babysitter

Paramount and Skydance Media finally completed their merger this week. To get there, Paramount paid $16 million to settle President Donald Trump’s absurdly frivolous lawsuit against CBS News, while Skydance reportedly will chip in $20 million in Trump-friendly PSAs.

So now Trump will leave them alone, right? Of course not. Skydance also committed to Federal Communications Commission chair and Trump bootlicker Brendan Carr to appoint a “bias ombudsman.” Skydance CEO David Ellison assured skeptics that the position will be a “transparency vehicle, not an oversight vehicle.” He promised that “we’re not being overseen by the FCC or anyone else.”

Carr sees it differently. He told The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr that the FCC is in a “trust but verify posture,” noting that “when you make a filing at the FCC, we have rules and regulations that deal with false representations to the agency.” He added, “I’m confident that we’re going to stay in touch with [Skydance and Paramount] and track this issue.”

It sure sounds like Carr’s leaving the door wide open to threaten regulatory action whenever CBS broadcasts something he doesn’t like. Carr — who intends to monitor bias while wearing the president’s bust as a lapel pin — is the poster child for why the Constitution bars the government from meddling in newsrooms’ editorial decisions. Carr has also said he’s keeping his FCC’s nonsense investigation into CBS open, giving him another cudgel to wield if journalists forget who’s boss. There’s $36 million well spent.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Advocacy Director Seth Stern talked more about Carr’s censorial antics and our attorney disciplinary complaint against him on Legal AF’s “Court of History” podcast on the MeidasTouch network. Watch it here.

FPF’s barrage of FOIAs seeks to combat secrecy

Since our Freedom of Information Act request exposed the lies underpinning the Trump administration’s crackdown on leaks to journalists, FPF has filed over 100 more FOIAs to learn how the administration is targeting journalists and stifling dissent.

We put together a list of our top 10 most urgent FOIA requests. Read more here.

How federal law enables retaliation against incarcerated journalists

These days the president of the United States files frivolous lawsuits at an alarming clip, including against news outlets that displease him. He’s far from the only prominent public figure abusing the federal court system in this way.

And yet, Congress has not seen fit to pass a federal “anti-SLAPP” law to stop powerful billionaires and politicians from pursuing strategic lawsuits against public participation. But powerless prisoners? That’s another story. If they want access to the federal courts, they need to navigate the Prison Litigation Reform Act — a maze of onerous procedural requirements.

We hosted a webinar with incarcerated journalist Jeremy Busby and two attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Nina Patel and Corene Kendrick, to hear more about how the law silences journalism. Read and watch here.

Don’t let the leading voice for digital journalists be silenced

For decades, the National Press Photographers Association has protected the rights of news photographers and videographers. But recently, NPPA announced that it faces financial difficulties. We spoke to NPPA’s longtime General Counsel, Mickey Osterreicher, about NPPA’s work and the impact on the First Amendment if it shutters. You can support the NPPA’s programs here.

Privacy policy update

We’ve updated FPF’s privacy policy to include a new payment processor and our use of Fight for the Future’s activism APIs. See the updated policy for details.

FPF’s Stern spoke to Protect the Protest — a coalition of nonprofit organizations fighting back against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, of which we are a proud member — about what the Paramount merger means for press freedom.

This is an obvious violation of reporters’ rights. Secret Service members should have basic First Amendment training, especially if they are going to be dispatched in the field.

The government that has killed more journalists than all other countries combined over the last few years shouldn’t be lecturing a newspaper about anything — let alone an obviously true story.

An unfortunate decision, but this might be one of the rare instances when this Supreme Court accidentally does some good. We wrote last year about how this rule impacts the press.

First, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a public records request that uncovered how Home Depot and Lowe’s are cooperating with cops. Then, 404 Media made the story free thanks to their commitment to dropping paywalls for public records-based reporting.

We’re skeptical of the government’s excuses for deleting habeas corpus from an online copy of the Constitution. Let us guess, the next “glitch” makes the First Amendment disappear?

Rachel Maddow discussed our disciplinary complaint against Carr as an example of using the legal profession’s standards “as a way to stand up and push back against” attacks on the press.

For decades, one organization has dedicated itself to protecting the rights of news photographers and videographers. The National Press Photographers Association has led countless First Amendment battles to protect visual journalists’ right to document and the public’s right to see and hear the news.

The organization’s general counsel, Mickey Osterreicher, is often at the forefront of those fights. He and NPPA have protected the First Amendment right to record in public, limited senseless government regulations restricting photography and recording, and even won a groundbreaking settlement with the New York Police Department over its treatment of journalists at protests.

But recently, NPPA announced that it faces financial difficulties. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) spoke to Osterreicher about NPPA’s work and the impact on the First Amendment if it shutters. You can read our full conversation below, and you can donate to NPPA’s programs here.

You’ve been NPPA’s general counsel since 2005, and you’ve also been a news photographer. How have the legal issues facing visual journalists changed over the years, and what are the most pressing issues they face today?

Both from a practical and legal standpoint, being a journalist was a lot simpler when I was a photojournalist. One of the biggest challenges I now face is trying to answer the question from police and lawmakers, “Who is a journalist?” and, during a protest, “Who gets to stay after an order to disperse?”

But once those press access rights have been attained, what good is it if visual journalists cannot make a decent living after risking their health and safety because their images are being misappropriated without permission, credit, or compensation? So it is a combination of dealing with First Amendment and copyright issues that keeps me up most nights.

That is to say nothing of the exponential use of generative artificial intelligence that has economically impacted the market for news photography as well as creating ethical challenges for visual journalists and public perception.

Tell us more about how the rise of AI-generated images and deepfakes is affecting the work and rights of visual journalists.

For visual journalism, generative artificial intelligence is the worst of both worlds, where millions of images (still and video) are ingested to train AI models without payment to the creators and the public can no longer believe what they see without wondering if what they are viewing is a true depiction of what really happened or an artificially created image. Even worse, this technology now provides an additional layer of ambiguity to those who claim that actual images of real events are “fake news.”

You’ve trained many law enforcement officers about journalists’ First Amendment rights, especially when they’re covering political conventions and protests. What are the most important things for police officers to know about press freedom, and how is NPPA uniquely positioned to provide that training?

I have three goals when training police and journalists about press freedoms. One: that police are not sued for abridging First Amendment rights of citizens and journalists, costing taxpayers dearly with money that could be better spent for police recruitment and retention or equipment. Two: that journalists are able to do their jobs without being harassed, injured, or arrested. Three: that the public is informed, which is the basis for the First Amendment — that being the desire by the founding fathers for the right of the public to receive information, and be an informed electorate.

As “the voice of visual journalists” since 1946, NPPA is uniquely positioned to foster improved police-press-public relations in an era when it is most needed by instilling greater respect for the roles each plays in our democracy. We’ve provided these trainings to law enforcement agencies nationwide for almost 20 years, with scores of departments and hundreds of officers being trained, including the entire Minnesota State Patrol as part of the settlement terms of a federal civil rights lawsuit, as well as the start of training with the NYPD regarding the new policies and procedures implemented as a result of the settlement of our lawsuit.

“Should our voice be muted, its silence will be deafening.”

What I believe also adds to NPPA’s credibility is my background as a photojournalist with over forty years’ experience in print and broadcast, my experience as a First Amendment attorney, and my understanding of the challenges facing law enforcement from having been a uniformed reserve deputy sheriff with the Erie County Sheriff’s Office since 1976 and working closely with law enforcement through various associations and committees.

That experience working with police departments — which not many press freedom organizations have — has also allowed you to get involved in many other issues that are important to all journalists, not just visual ones. Tell us about your work on police radio encryption and other ways you’re able to leverage the work you’ve done training police departments.

The encryption of police radio transmissions is a growing problem nationwide, because for almost a century, newsrooms and journalists have relied on the monitoring of those broadcasts to cover breaking news and other matters of public concern.

One place where such coverage is critical is New York City, where so many newsworthy events occur and where, because of the congested vehicle traffic, time is of the essence in getting to the scene. A few years ago, the NYPD announced that it would begin encrypting its transmissions. NPPA joined a consortium of news organizations asking to work with NYPD to allow journalists to continue to have real-time access to those broadcasts. Despite meeting with police officials, testifying before the city council and submitting a white paper on the subject, the NYPD has refused to discuss this issue further, and many of the important police frequencies have already been encrypted.

The consortium then supported a state bill that would allow for press access. That bill passed both houses and is awaiting the governor’s signature. NPPA has also worked with press groups around the country to address this issue.

Another problem we helped to solve was an exemption for journalists to a New York law that banned anyone in the state (except for certain “eligible professions”) from the “purchase, taking possession of, sale, exchange, giving or disposing of body armor.”

Additionally, NPPA was instrumental in opposing an Arizona bill that barred anyone recording police from getting closer than 15 feet to an officer without their permission. I drafted several letters to the legislature joined by 30 press organizations cautioning against the unconstitutionality of the proposed law, which was ultimately passed after the measure was amended to an 8-foot distance. I then worked with the American Civil Liberties Union and Arizona Broadcasters Association to obtain a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the law. NPPA has also filed amicus briefs in two other constitutional challenges to similar laws in Indiana and Louisiana.

When the White House restricted the Associated Press’s access over its use of the term ‘Gulf of Mexico’ (a move that NPPA and FPF condemned), it raised concerns about the chilling effects of such retaliation on journalists. If presidents can exclude outlets or photographers from the press pool for editorial decisions, what does that mean for press freedom and the role of visual journalists?

As NPPA stated, such actions by the administration are unacceptable as both an attempt at prior restraint and a blatant retaliation and chilling abridgment of the First Amendment rights of the AP and its journalists.

Unfortunately, we have seen both the federal district court as well as the circuit court hearing the appeal in this case give wide latitude and discretion to the White House as to who it admits to cover certain events. Additional fallout from this has been the White House Correspondents Association losing its long-standing control over the press pool rotation as well as other “disfavored” media outlets being barred from inclusion in the pool.

All these actions taken by the administration are having a chilling effect on press coverage of the government and are eviscerating press freedom. The NPPA continues to work with news and press freedom organizations to advocate and support the right of the public to be informed.

Over the years, NPPA has had to oppose a number of laws that prohibit or limit taking pictures in public places as well as using drones to capture aerial footage. What should journalists do if they’re stopped and told they can’t take pictures or record in public?

Our staunch advocacy has led to the right to photograph and record in traditional public forums being “clearly established” in three-quarters of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, which is key to successfully bringing civil rights claims against those who try to limit or interfere with those rights.

While NPPA was initially successful in challenging Texas drone regulations, that decision was reversed on appeal. But we have been effective in ensuring that language protecting the First Amendment rights of journalists to use drones for newsgathering be included in government regulations.

NPPA has provided extensive training as to what journalists can do if they’re stopped and told they can’t take pictures or record in public. The foremost advice is to meet with law enforcement on a regular basis to ensure that these rights are honored by police and to discuss how best to improve police-press interactions. While in the field, it is crucial to maintain situational awareness and pay attention to police and crowd movements to avoid being encircled (kettled). Always have an exit strategy, as it is always better to move to a different location than be arrested. If police stop or question you about your activities, make sure to identify yourself as a journalist.

What will journalism lose if NPPA is forced to close its doors?

It would be a significant loss to not only visual journalists but to journalism itself if NPPA were to cease as an organization. For almost 80 years, NPPA has strongly advocated for the rights of visual journalists and now more than ever that unique voice is needed as more journalists are required to report not only with words but images. It also comes at a time when the importance of truthful images could not be greater.

While there are many other organizations supporting the First Amendment and press freedoms, none is more exclusively dedicated to the advancement and protection of visual journalism in its role as a vital public service than the NPPA. Our code of ethics is often cited as exemplary of what visual journalism should strive to achieve. Should our voice be muted, its silence will be deafening.

Donate to NPPA’s programs here to help protect the rights of visual journalists and the public’s right to know.

These days the president of the United States files frivolous lawsuits at an alarming clip, including against news outlets that displease him. He’s far from the only prominent public figure abusing the federal court system in this way, steering scarce judicial resources away from meritorious lawsuits by ordinary people who have suffered serious damages.

And yet, Congress has not seen fit to pass a federal “anti-SLAPP” law to stop billionaires and politicians from pursuing strategic lawsuits against public participation. But powerless prisoners? That’s another story. If they want access to the federal courts they need to navigate the Prison Litigation Reform Act — a maze of onerous procedural requirements. It’s supposedly intended to stop the courts from being burdened by inmates’ frivolous lawsuits.

We held a webinar to discuss the PLRA’s impact on incarcerated journalists and the journalists on the outside who cover the prison system, featuring Jeremy Busby, a journalist and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) columnist who is incarcerated in Texas, and American Civil Liberties Union attorneys Nina Patel and Corene Kendrick. Patel is senior policy counsel at the ACLU Justice Division and Kendrick is the deputy director of the ACLU’s National Prison Project.

As Kendrick explained, the PLRA originated as one of the Clinton administration’s “tough on crime” initiatives as it pivoted right in preparation for the 1996 presidential election. The law was enacted despite a lack of evidence that incarcerated people file baseless lawsuits any more frequently than anyone else, presidents or otherwise. She said the law “singles out one disfavored group of people and categorically denies them equal access to the courts.”

She described how the harm extends beyond the impacted litigants, as the kinds of court filings foreclosed by the PLRA are “oftentimes the best way that information about conditions in our nation’s prisons and jails reach the public and members of the media.”

“The PLRA has, in practice, served as a real barrier for journalists to get any sort of information” about facilities that “get billions and billions of dollars a year to lock up human beings,” Kendrick said. “The ability to communicate with the outside world is so circumscribed and is monitored and recorded. And you know, once something gets to a federal court and it’s filed on the docket, it is out there.”

But when the court dismisses a case for procedural reasons without any consideration of whether the claims are true, all journalists are left with are untested allegations that they rarely have the resources to corroborate. “That happens all the time, and unfortunately, and it adversely affects journalists greatly,” Kendrick said.

Lawsuits are also the only recourse available to incarcerated journalists, who often report relentless retaliation when their work upsets prison officials. That’s what happened to Busby when he helped expose deplorable conditions inside the prison where he was housed when the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020. Busby said he was transferred to four prisons, each overcrowded with people sick with COVID, before landing in a cell without a mattress or sheets, where he was kept for six weeks. His property was damaged or seized, and he was written bogus disciplinary charges that were later overturned.

He brought a federal lawsuit, but because he was retaliated against in four different prisons, the judge said the PLRA required four separate lawsuits in four different courts. “I wasn’t able to successfully keep up with four active litigations in four different courts in four different counties, from the solitary confinement cell that I was being held in,” Busby explained, resulting in his lawsuits each being dismissed on procedural grounds before the merits of his claims could be adjudicated.

Busby is a college graduate and accomplished writer — if he can’t navigate the PLRA, it is all the more difficult for an average member of the prison population to do so. Even the experienced lawyers on the webinar acknowledged how challenging it can be to comply with the PLRA when representing their incarcerated clients. Incarcerated litigants, Busby noted, must also pay court fees — in his case, a $400 fee became $1,600 when his lawsuit was split into four.

“You don’t get paid for work here in Texas, and so most guys, they don’t even want the $400 thing against their account because their family members can maybe send $20 for toothpaste and deodorant every month or so, or every two or three months, and they don’t want to sacrifice their deodorant and toothpaste money to pursue this lawsuit,” he said.

So what’s the point of the PLRA? As Patel noted, “The courts are well equipped to throw out lawsuits that are frivolous,” and do so every day in cases involving non-incarcerated people. Patel believes the real problem the PLRA is meant to address isn’t that incarcerated people file so many invalid claims — it’s that they file so many valid ones.

With around two million people incarcerated in the United States, “a functional system where someone can go to the courts and have their constitutional violations in prison litigated and then compensated would break most prison systems in this country,” Patel explained. “That is the dirty truth of the PLRA.”

She added, “Everyone knows, and it’s not a secret, that it would bankrupt the system, and it would break it, and that we couldn’t do what we do in this country, which is lead the world in mass incarceration.”

Watch the full webinar here, and subscribe to our newsletters to get notice of future events.

Note: FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern, who authored this article and moderated the webinar, is on the board of Busby’s nonprofit organization, JoinJeremy.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s been 129 days that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like, and the 47th day that Mario Guevara has been imprisoned for covering a protest. Read on for more, and click here to subscribe to our other newsletters.

Lose the law license, keep the lapel pin

This week we filed an ethics complaint with the Washington, D.C., attorney disciplinary commission against Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, calling for him to be disbarred.

Carr’s approval of the $8 billion merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media, which came after Paramount agreed to pay President Donald Trump $16 million to settle his frivolous lawsuit, was the last straw. It’s clear that Carr is abusing his power to help the president, whose face he wears as a lapel pin (seriously), use the court system to extract payments that U.S. senators and plenty others have called illegal bribes.

“Trump’s shakedown of Paramount could not have worked without a credible threat that the administration would not approve Paramount’s merger with Skydance unless it paid up,” Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Advocacy Director Seth Stern told Status. “It seems obvious to us that a licensed attorney should not be able to help his boss make a mockery of the legal system by laundering bribes through the courts without consequence.”

Read the complaint here.

FPF sues over Qatari plane secrecy

Two months ago, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo giving the Trump administration permission to accept a $400 million jet from Qatar to use as Air Force One.

The memo argued this was permissible as long as the plane was transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation at the end of Trump’s term. But the document, and Bondi’s basis for that politically convenient conclusion, have never been made public.

FPF, represented by watchdog group American Oversight, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit this week to force the Justice Department to release the memo. Read more here.

Google search exploited to censor reporting on censorship

On a Friday afternoon in mid-June, independent journalist Jack Poulson made a curious discovery: An article that we published about the aggressive attempts of a San Francisco-based tech executive named Maury Blackman to censor Poulson’s reporting about his sealed domestic violence arrest had, itself, disappeared from Google search results.

After Poulson alerted us to the issue, we investigated, and found that the article vanished from Google search because of a novel maneuver that apparently hasn’t been publicly well documented before: a sustained and coordinated abuse of Google’s “Refresh Outdated Content” tool. Now that Google says it has fixed the glitch so it can’t be further exploited, we can reveal what we found. Read more here.

The libel-proof president

Trump’s latest frivolous lawsuit, against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, faces plenty of legal obstacles.

One of them should be the “libel-proof plaintiff” doctrine, which theorizes that some people are so reputationally damaged, either across the board or on a certain topic, that even false statements about them can’t make it quantifiably worse.

As Stern wrote for The Palm Beach Post, the doctrine is often used against private litigants with long criminal records. That’s a tough sell to judges who believe in rehabilitation, which is likely why the doctrine is rarely applied. A better use may be as an added layer of defense to libel suits by disgraced politicians and public figures like Trump. Read the op-ed here.

What we’re reading

’If You Can Keep It’: Weakening whistleblower protections (NPR). The Trump administration is trying to portray journalism as a threat to national security. FPF’s Lauren Harper debunked these claims on “1A.”

Anna Gomez’s lonely fight (Columbia Journalism Review). Despite the FCC’s obligation to refrain from censorship, Commissioner Anna Gomez says a local station manager instructed reporters to “be extra careful about how they described the administration, because they couldn’t afford to be dragged before the FCC.” Also listen to FPF’s June conversation with Gomez here.

This U.S. citizen recorded an immigration arrest. Officers told him to delete it or face charges. (Reason). The constitutional right to record law enforcement applies equally to immigration officers, and this story shows why.

The fight for free speech goes corporate (Columbia Journalism Review). “People can’t trust a news outlet that is bribing the same officials it’s supposed to hold accountable,” FPF’s Stern said.

A more perfect media (Free Press). Read this new report on corporate influence on the media from Free Press (not the Bari Weiss one). It accompanies their new Media Capitulation Index.

On a Friday afternoon in mid-June, independent journalist Jack Poulson made a curious discovery: An article that we published about the aggressive attempts of a San Francisco-based tech executive named Maury Blackman to censor Poulson’s reporting about his sealed domestic violence arrest had, itself, disappeared from Google search results.

After Poulson alerted us that day, we immediately investigated that weekend. Even when searching for the article’s exact headline – “Anatomy of a censorship campaign: A tech exec’s crusade to stifle journalism” – it didn’t appear on Google search. It did, however, show up atop results on other search engines like DuckDuckGo and Bing. No other articles published by Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) seemed to have been suppressed by Google.

A Google search conducted by FPF on June 17 of the exact headline didn’t return the article. Other FPF articles appeared normally.

The article removed from Google search reported on a sweeping, persistent effort by Blackman or his apparent representatives to silence reporting by Poulson and his nonprofit Tech Inquiry.

The censorship campaign started after Poulson reported in 2023 about the executive’s 2021 arrest on suspicion of domestic violence against his then-25-year-old girlfriend in San Francisco. Blackman, 53 at the time, was never charged or convicted, and the alleged victim recanted her statements. A California court sealed the arrest report in 2022.

Shortly after the publication of Poulson’s article, Blackman resigned as CEO of Premise Data Corp., a surveillance technology firm with U.S. military contracts.

When Blackman was still Premise’s CEO, the company hired a private investigation and security service firm, and filed legal requests in an attempt to unmask Poulson’s confidential sources. Someone claiming to represent Blackman submitted fraudulent Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown requests targeting Poulson’s article. Blackman’s attorneys also roped the San Francisco city attorney into an intimidation campaign against Poulson and Substack, which hosts his newsletter.

These tactics all failed.

But that wasn’t all. Blackman also filed a baseless defamation lawsuit against Poulson, his website hosts, and Tech Inquiry that was later dismissed on First Amendment grounds under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (SLAPP, a strategic lawsuit against public participation, refers to legal actions brought to chill speech). Blackman is appealing the dismissal.

And in April, Blackman even filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco for allegedly releasing the arrest report. One of the exhibits to a later filing included a May 2024 letter sent by Blackman’s lawyer to an individual that he thought was Poulson’s source, threatening legal action and demanding a $7.5 million settlement payment.

How Google search was exploited

There are several well-known tactics used to suppress or remove results from Google search. Copyright claims (legitimate and frivolous), court orders (real, forged, or otherwise fishy), and warning letters from government agencies have all been used to disappear search results from Google, sometimes as the result of the work of shady reputation management companies.

Our article, however, was vanished from Google search using a novel maneuver that apparently hasn’t been publicly well documented before: a sustained and coordinated abuse of Google’s “Refresh Outdated Content” tool. (In 2023, in response to a public support request flagging the abuse of the tool to de-index pages, Google’s search liaison said that the company would look into it further, but provided no additional information. The request has since been locked and the replies disabled.)

Google’s “Refresh Outdated Content” tool

This tool is supposed to allow those who are not a site’s owner to request the removal from search results of web pages that are no longer live (returning a “404 error”), or to request an update in search of web pages that display outdated or obsolete information in returned results.

However, a malicious actor could, until recently, disappear a legitimate article by submitting a removal request for a URL that resembled the target article but led to a “404 error.” By altering the capitalization of a URL slug, a malicious actor apparently could take advantage of a case-insensitivity bug in Google’s automated system of content removal.

That is exactly what happened to our article about the censorship campaign against Poulson. Someone reported an invalid variation of the article’s URL and requested its removal from Google search results. When Google’s crawler encountered the “404 error” following the report, it not only de-indexed the reported URL but also erroneously removed the live, valid article, possibly alongside every other variant of the URL, from search results.

Each time our original article was re-indexed by Google, someone submitted a new removal request for a slightly modified, oddly-capitalized version of the URL’s slug, triggering the same process, and so on. This cycle allowed the person or people submitting the reports to continuously suppress our article from search visibility — resulting in a game of digital Whac-A-Mole.

Nine removal requests targeting the same article on FPF’s site between May 7 and June 23, 2025.

Once we identified the pattern, we took action by canceling the active removal requests in our Google Search Console and manually re-indexing the article so it would reappear in Google search results.

But we weren’t the only targets of this de-indexing scheme. After we alerted Poulson about what we had found, he discovered that two of his articles were similarly targeted using the same Refresh Outdated Content tool during the same time frame as ours.

In total, the two Poulson articles were targeted using this method 21 times. Our article was targeted nine times. The attacks on both websites spanned the same period, May 7 to June 23, strongly suggesting that a single actor was behind the campaign and that the campaign was forced to an end once Google introduced its fix.

Google’s ‘rare’ response and fix

When we reached out about the removal of our article, a Google spokesperson confirmed the abuse to us in an emailed statement on June 27. Initially, the company told us that the Refresh Outdated Content tool “helps ensure our search results are up to date,” adding that they are “vigilant in monitoring abuse,” and that they have “relisted pages that were wrongly impacted for this specific issue.”

This vague response did not explain whether Google already knew about the vulnerability of its tool for abuse, and was unclear about whether only our and Poulson’s pages had been re-indexed, or other websites were also impacted by similar attacks.

In a response to another question about whether this vulnerability has been widely exploited and how many other web pages could have been improperly de-indexed as a result of the abuse of this tool, the spokesperson claimed that “the issue only impacted a tiny fraction of websites,” which is a very unhelpful answer given the internet’s 1 billion websites.

Upon pressing Google with another round of detailed questions about our findings, the company was more forthcoming: “Confirming that we’ve rolled out a fix to prevent this type of abuse of the ‘Refresh Outdated Content Tool,’ the spokesperson said, but added that they “won’t be able to share anymore on this.”

While Google did the right thing by fixing this vulnerability, it’s disappointing that the company is unwilling to be more transparent. Google says that it’s committed to maximizing access to information. If that’s true, it has an obligation to the public to be transparent about how its products can be misused in such a basic way to censor speech.

Subscribe for the most up-to-date news on press freedom.

Thanks for subscribing to Freedom of the Press Foundation's mailing list. We'll send you opportunities to take action on combating government secrecy, protesting mass surveillance, and protecting reporter's rights.

Did Google know about the problem before we alerted it? Is it aware of other methods used to maliciously de-index search results? The company isn’t saying. But at least now that Google has confirmed that they’ve introduced a universal fix to avoid further exploitation of that bug, we can reveal the scheme’s details.

Google allowing those other than sites’ owners to remove pages from Google search results “is obviously a huge problem,” said Jason Kelley, director of activism at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The other issue is the lack of transparency from Google. Site owners would probably never find out if this feature was used to impact their search results, and probably never will find out that this had happened to them now that it’s corrected.”

Kelley described the company’s admission of the issue’s existence and taking it seriously as “rare.”

(EFF lawyers represented Poulson in the case.)

‘Legal failure’

Poulson told us it was “humbling” to realize that a 600-word article on the CEO of a surveillance firm could lead to such cascading censorship efforts, including the recent effort to “sabotage Google search results.”

“Blackman’s attempt to use the courts to scrub his felony arrest report and related news articles from the internet was not just a legal failure,” Susan Seager, a First Amendment lawyer who represents Tech Inquiry, told FPF. She added that his libel and privacy lawsuit against Poulson, Tech Inquiry, Substack, and Amazon Web Services “brought even more publicity to his arrest.”

On Tuesday, Poulson, Tech Inquiry, and Substack were awarded close to $400,000 in attorneys’ fees by the San Francisco Superior Court.

Who might be behind it?

Because Google does not document who submits removal requests through the Refresh Outdated Content tool, we have no way of knowing for certain who was behind the attempts to suppress search results featuring articles by us and Poulson.

We reached out to Blackman, who is now the CEO of a reputation management agency, ironically named The Transparency Company. We asked whether he or one of his associates reported our or Poulson’s articles using the Refresh Outdated Content tool or otherwise attempted to have Google de-index or suppress them. He didn’t respond to our requests for comment.

The good news is that all three articles — ours and Poulson’s — are restored on Google search, and Google claims to have fixed this problem. Plus, the new round of censorship inspired a new round of reporting, including the article you’re reading right now and a new article by Poulson, also published today.

Maybe now, anyone attempting to abuse legal or technical tools to censor journalism will learn the hard truth about the Streisand Effect: it will almost inevitably draw more attention, not less.

Editor’s note: On Aug. 1, two days after publication, this article itself was targeted for scrubbing from the internet using the very method it described. On that day, journalist Jack Poulson’s related article about the subject was also targeted using the same method. Both requests were denied by Google because of the fix requested by FPF.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Today, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), represented by nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight, filed a Freedom of Information Act suit against the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for failing to release a legal memorandum that reportedly justified the Trump administration’s acceptance of a $400 million jet gifted by the Qatari government in May.

The luxury aircraft — set to be retrofitted for use as Air Force One to the tune of hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and later transferred to President Donald Trump’s private foundation — has raised serious legal and ethical concerns. Multiple experts and lawmakers from both parties have raised questions about whether accepting such a gift from a foreign government violates the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause and federal ethics rules. Additionally, while Trump claims Qatar reached out and offered the jet as a “gift” to him, media reports the opposite is true — his administration approached Qatar.

“It shouldn’t take 620 days to release a single, time-sensitive document,” said Lauren Harper, Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy. “How many flights could Trump have taken on his new plane in the same amount of time it would have taken the DOJ to release this one document? The government’s inability to administer FOIA makes it too easy for agencies to keep secrets, and nonexistent disclosure rules around donations to presidential libraries provide easy cover for bad actors and potential corruption.”

“President Trump’s deal to take a $400 million luxury jet from a foreign government deserves full public scrutiny — not a stiff-arm from the Department of Justice,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, which is representing FPF in its litigation. “This is precisely the kind of corrupt arrangement that public records laws are designed to expose. The DOJ cannot sit on its hands and expect the American people to wait years for the truth while serious questions about corruption, self-dealing, and foreign influence go unanswered.”

The May 2025 memorandum, reportedly signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who previously lobbied on behalf of the Qatari government, purportedly concluded that the Trump administration’s acceptance of the jet was legally permissible. The administration accepted the jet just days later. The circumstances surrounding the jet deal, including reports that the transaction may have been initiated by the Trump administration and that it followed a lucrative Trump private business arrangement in Qatar, have only heightened calls for transparency.

News that the luxury jet will be donated to Trump’s private presidential library foundation after he is no longer in office follows reports that ABC News and Paramount, which was seeking government approval for a merger with Skydance, resolved litigation with President Trump by agreeing to multimillion-dollar payouts to the foundation.

FPF submitted its FOIA request for the Bondi memo on May 15. Although the DOJ granted expedited processing, the department informed FPF that the estimated time for fulfilling the request was more than 600 days. As of today, the DOJ has failed to release any responsive records or provide a further timeline for production.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Indian Time, a newspaper that served the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne, built and informed a loyal audience of Indigenous readers on the U.S.-Canada border for over 40 years.

Then, it vanished.

In late December 2024, the paper’s last edition was printed and website updates screeched to a halt. Indian Time’s hand was forced by the same pressures affecting newspapers nationwide — declining ad revenue and struggling finances. Despite breaking inimitable stories about the Mohawk Nation, the paper could not afford to keep the ink flowing.

“We thought the economic climate of Akwesasne could hold us,” said Marjorie Skidders, the longtime and last editor of Indian Time, “but it didn’t.”

Now, a population of over 10,000 people across two different countries is living under a tribal news blackout. With no paper of record, the community must rely on the local government, social media, and non-native news sources to piece together a broken portrait of Akwesasne life.

“There is no coverage of anything to hold anyone accountable, politically,” Skidders said. “There’s no coverage of meetings, there’s no coverage of gatherings.”

To better understand the demise of one of America’s oldest Indigenous newspapers and the impact on its community, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) hosted a webinar July 22 with Skidders, former Indian Time reporter and FPF contributor Isaac White, and U.S. Press Freedom Tracker Senior Reporter Stephanie Sugars.

Since the paper’s shuttering, no publication has stepped up to fill the void, White said. His frustration is compounded by the fact that he and Skidders are still the first points of contact for community members and sources they developed while at Indian Time, whom he has to remind “that the paper is closed” when they reach out to share a tip. It takes a “sensational” story, he said, to “draw outside reporters here.”

“A lot of us will say, ‘We are the invisible people,’” White said. “That’s one of the things that hurt so bad with Indian Time being gone. Who really cares about us, except for us? And I think that that’s a fair question to ask.”

He raised a couple of timely examples: Conservative commentator Ann Coulter recently posted on social media that, “We didn’t kill enough Indians,” a remark condemned by the Native American community but that drew little attention from national news outlets.

White also noted that, with all the coverage of the Trump administration’s “Alligator Alcatraz” immigration detention center, there has been little mention of the fact the facility was built on land belonging to the Miccosukee Tribe.

These are stories White and Skidders would have loved to share their perspectives on, but no longer have a platform to do so, they said.

“I think that kind of encapsulates everything,” White said. “Those two instances are things that really highlight why coverage of Indian culture is not sufficient, not even close to sufficient — and why we need our independent news outlets, like Indian Time or any other ones.”

Indian Time’s uniqueness as an independent tribal publication made the loss sting all the more. Many Indigenous news outlets “fell under the wing of the tribal government,” Skidders said. That afforded Indian Time’s staff freedoms other tribal journalists often didn’t have, like reporting without fear or favor.

“We strived to work the best that we could and be independent. And we never satisfied anyone,” she added. “We were either too one way or too the other way, but we just worked to try and do the best that we could.”

Like anywhere else in the world, press freedom violations can and do occur on Indigenous lands. White himself was arrested while covering a Mohawk land claim dispute in May 2024, and a large number of arrests and assaults of journalists took place during Dakota Access Pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017.

But documenting these incidents requires additional sensitivity, Sugars said, as few tribal constitutions enumerate press freedom protections.

“There are a large number of things that we document in terms of denial of access, demands for prior review, tribal councils having control over funding, distribution, hiring, firing, decisions, things of that nature,” she said of the Tracker. “It is challenging for us to cover those things because we don’t want to be imposing our ideas about what is wrong or right.”

White also discussed cultural differences. The notion of objectivity becomes complicated in situations where Indigenous journalists are reporting on their own neighbors, to whom they are bonded outside the domain of a journalist-source relationship.

In the moments before White was arrested covering the land claim demonstration, for example, he said he helped community elders unload food and water from a cooler and prop up a canopy to shield them from the rain. “It was just a reflex,” he said, but after he was arrested, he was afraid outside journalists would see his common courtesy as unprofessional.

“I come from a longhouse. Margie comes from a longhouse. It’s something that you just do. If wood needs to be split, you just do it. If something needs to be cooked in the cookhouse, you help,” he said. “That’s just the way that we’re taught to do things.”

When White told Skidders what happened, she empathized with his moral conflict.

“It didn’t bother me,” she said. “Wherever he goes, whatever he’s doing, he’s a Mohawk first. And he’s going to behave honorably like that.”

The Akwesasne elders, like those White helped, treasured Indian Time, Skidders said. They were, after all, the “biggest population” of the paper’s readers, and they relished staying informed about the community.

“Now it’s gone,” she added about the paper. “I don’t know how we could do it again.”

White himself is trying to keep the flame alive. He runs a podcast available on YouTube called “Sage Against the Machine” (@SageAgainstTheMachinePod), which offers a more “unfiltered look” at Mohawk news. But its “raw” and conversational nature isn’t a platform to plumb deep topics like a newspaper, and it is no replacement for the dedicated work of Indian Time.

“By the book, as a journalist, you cannot do it part time,” he said. “It’s just not feasible. It’s a loss.”

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 122nd day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like, and the 41st day that Mario Guevara has been imprisoned for covering a protest. Read on for more.

Paramount makes its capitulation official

President Donald Trump announced this week that he’d received CBS News parent Paramount Global’s $16 million payment to settle his frivolous lawsuit. Just days later, Trump’s FCC issued its long-delayed approval of Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media, confirming what we all knew — the payment has nothing to do with legal fees or liability risks and everything to do with greasing the wheels of a corrupt administration.

As Freedom of the Press Advocacy Director Seth Stern told Columbia Journalism Review, Paramount threw CBS journalists and the First Amendment under the bus, while making itself a punch line. “People can’t trust a news outlet that is bribing the same officials it’s supposed to hold accountable,” Stern said. But we’re not done fighting back against the enablers of this shakedown of a settlement — more on that soon. Read more in CJR.

Journalists starve in Gaza

Reuters, the Associated Press, BBC News and Agence France-Presse jointly expressed their alarm about the terrible plight of journalists in Gaza, and particularly the risk of starvation. As one journalist put it, “I used to chase the truth. Now I chase calories.”

“Journalists endure many deprivations and hardships in war zones. We are deeply alarmed that the threat of starvation is now one of them. We once again urge the Israeli authorities to allow journalists in and out of Gaza. It is essential that adequate food supplies reach the people there,” their statement said.

We told CJR that “no matter what else they do while in power, governments and presidents that supported these horrors, and tolerated the killing of journalists who reported on them, will be remembered first and foremost for their complicity.” We also published a profile of the journalist who wrote our article, in collaboration with the Intercept, about the dire situation facing journalists in Gaza, Neha Madhira. Read it here.

Radio silence on the reservation

Indian Time, a newspaper that served the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne, built and informed a loyal audience of Indigenous readers for over 40 years.

But in late December 2024, the paper printed its last edition. Indian Time’s hand was forced by the same pressures affecting newspapers nationwide — namely, declining ad revenue. The paper could not afford to keep the ink flowing.

To better understand the demise of the newspaper and the impact on its community, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) hosted a webinar with Indian Time editor Marjorie Skidders, former Indian Time reporter and FPF columnist Isaac White, and U.S. Press Freedom Tracker Senior Reporter Stephanie Sugars. Read more and watch the discussion here.

ICE must stop harassing journalists

According to a recent report by AMNY, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents making arrests in New York City immigration courts are harassing journalists by photographing journalists’ press credentials and falsely telling them that common areas of the courthouse are “restricted areas” from which they can’t report.

These intimidation tactics can chill constitutionally protected reporting. That’s why FPF and other press freedom groups wrote to the New York Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment and to the Federal Protective Service asking that they reaffirm that journalists have the right to report the news in New York courts without intimidation and that they develop policies to end ICE’s harassment of journalists.

Read the full letters here and here, and a follow-up report from AMNY here.

Comey cellphone tracking points to privacy erosion

You may remember that the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security launched an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey for posting a picture on Instagram during his beach vacation of seashells spelling out “8647.”

Since then, the government has apparently been exercising emergency authority to warrantlessly track his real-time cellphone location, despite the absence of anything resembling an emergency. This abuse of power is also a threat to journalists and sources. Read more here.

Kentucky prosecutors must drop charges

Two Cincinnati journalists were arrested in Kentucky for documenting a protest, despite zero evidence that they did anything wrong.

The absurd felony rioting charges against them were dropped this week after we, along with the Society of Professional Journalists and National Press Photographers Association, wrote a letter to prosecutors expressing our concerns. But the misdemeanor charges against them are still pending, and they shouldn’t be. Read the letter here.

What we’re reading

Hypocrisy on display (Press Club of Southwest Florida). If the Trump administration hates interview editing enough to shake down CBS for $16 million over its Kamala Harris interview, why is it prosecuting journalist Tim Burke for exposing far more significant edits by Tucker Carlson of his interview with Ye?

Trump White House removes WSJ from Scotland trip press pool over Epstein report (CNN). “Hopefully the Journal reporters who were planning to join Trump for his golf trip are relieved that they can spend their newfound free time investigating more important stories, from Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein to his unprecedented efforts to bully the press,” Stern told CNN.

This bill would fine social media companies $5 million every day for not fighting ‘terrorism’ (Reason). “The idea that the federal government even talked to social media platforms about their moderation was a major scandal … A bipartisan bill, however, would make it mandatory for social media companies to work with the federal government.”

Family, supporters urge release of Spanish-language journalist in ICE custody (The Associated Press). “Growing up, I didn’t always understand why my dad was so obsessed with his work, why he’d jump up and leave dinner to chase down a story. But now I do,” said Mario Guevara’s son, Oscar, who now works as a photojournalist.

FBI spied on journalists and activists who organized ‘Russiagate And WikiLeaks’ panel (The Dissenter). The surveillance was revealed by documents the FBI turned over to Defending Rights & Dissent as part of ongoing litigation under the Freedom of Information Act.

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.