Freedom of the Press

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

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

Paramount’s spineless capitulation

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

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

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

Atrocities against Palestinian journalists

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

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

Don’t let ICE work in secret

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

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

Wiretap Act can’t criminalize routine journalism

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

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

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

What we’re reading

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

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

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

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

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

Threatening investigations on spurious grounds

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

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

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

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

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

Opening baseless investigations

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

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

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

Transforming ICE into secret police

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

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

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

ICE freezing out transparency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

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

Paramount should abandon mediation with Trump. So should the mediator

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

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

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

Stop prosecuting journalist who exposed antisemitism

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

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

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

Putting public records to use

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

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

What’s going on in Greene County?

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

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

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

What we’re reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Support local journalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Submit requests for public records and bodycam footage.

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

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

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

5. Call on lawmakers to end qualified immunity.

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

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

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

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

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

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

Five ways to help journalists covering protests

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

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

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

Remembering Daniel Ellsberg

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

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

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

Agencies hijack the ‘public interest’ to attack free speech

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

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

Preparing devices for travel through a US border

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

Public records shouldn’t be blocked by copyright

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

Pushing back on secrecy through public records

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

What we’re reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin: This is the gig :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 80th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like. Meanwhile, aggression from law enforcement at protests in California have landed journalists in the hospital. Read on for more press freedom news.

Journalists under attack in LA

Our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has been hard at work documenting the growing list of attacks on journalists — from shootings with crowd-control munitions to detainments to unlawful searches.

It’s a situation that is likely to get worse and spread to other cities, with local law enforcement emboldened by the administration’s rhetoric and federal agents being haphazardly thrown into situations they’re not trained to handle.

We worked with partner organizations in California to send letters to the Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles law enforcement agencies, the Marines and National Guard informing them of their obligations under the First Amendment, and in the case of the local authorities, California law.

Of course, strongly worded letters are not nearly enough for situations like these, and there’s plenty more work to do. But in the meantime, we’re not going to stay silent. Read the letters here, here and here.

Superstar lawyers join our effort to stop Paramount settlement

As reported in the Los Angeles Times, we’ve got a legal all-star team behind our effort to stop Paramount Global from capitulating to President Donald Trump by settling his frivolous lawsuit over an edited “60 Minutes” interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris.

Abbe Lowell, a highly respected litigator who has handled countless high-profile cases, Norman Eisen, a former ambassador to the Czech Republic and White House ethics advisor and their respective teams sent a formal demand letter to Paramount’s directors on our behalf outlining our plans to file a shareholder derivative suit if Paramount tanks its reputation and furthers America’s democratic backslide by caving.

This is an expensive endeavor, and we don’t get a dime if we win — whatever we recover from rogue Paramount directors and officers goes back to Paramount. Read more here and support us if you can.

FPF takes State Department to court over Öztürk secrecy

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) is taking the government to court over its refusal to disclose information about the arrest of Tufts graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk for exercising her constitutionally protected right to coauthor an op-ed the government didn’t like.

FPF, represented by Loevy and Loevy, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department in the District Court for the District of Columbia to force the release of two documents that will shed light on the government’s targeting of Öztürk. Read more here.

Documenting 10 years of Trump’s anti-press social media tirades

61,989. That’s how many social media posts by President Donald Trump over the past decade Tracker journalist Stephanie Sugars has single-handedly reviewed (at least as of yesterday).

Monday will mark 10 years since Trump famously descended a golden escalator at New York City’s Trump Tower in 2015 and launched his first winning bid for the Oval Office. The Tracker is marking the occasion by launching its Trump Anti-Press Social Media Tracker, a comprehensive database of Trump’s attacks on the press on Truth Social, X and elsewhere.

Read former Voice of America press freedom reporter Liam Scott’s article about Sugars and the database here.

What we’re reading

Supreme Court press corps asks chief justice to livestream court’s opinions (NPR). There’s simply no good reason for the Supreme Court to refuse to livestream its opinion announcements.

Woman arrested after interview by St. Paul journalist (Monitor). Federal authorities must promptly explain both their basis for arresting Isabel Lopez and how they knew where and when she’d be talking to reporters. Surveilling journalists is unacceptable.

Lindsey Graham thinks it should be illegal to identify ICE agents (Techdirt). It’s bad enough to ban identifying ICE agents, but notice how Graham slips in “other federal law enforcement officers involved in covert operations.” It’s part of a pro-secret police movement. And it’s bipartisan. Ask the taxpayers of LA.

Condemning SFPD’s detention of Daily Cal staffers and suppression of student journalism (The Daily Californian). Detaining journalists, even for a minute, prevents them from covering events of public concern, and violates their rights. The San Francisco Police Department and other police departments around the country need a crash course on the First Amendment.

DeSantis administration blasted for ‘chilling’ Florida press with cease and desist letter (Naples Daily News). Florida Gov. Ron Desantis is baselessly accusing the press of “coercing” people to say negative things about his wife’s initiatives. We assure you that no one is coercing us to say that Ron DeSantis is an anti-speech, wannabe authoritarian.

Small-town newspapers are dying because no one wants to run them (Columbia Journalism Review). Succession planning doesn’t usually make the list when people talk about the challenges facing the press, but Liam Scott explores the consequences of local newspaper publishers dying and retiring with no one there to take over.

The weaponization of the federal government against its critics used to be a Republican Party talking point when President Joe Biden was in office. Now that President Donald Trump’s in charge, it’s become their playbook.

Journalists and nonprofits, including nonprofit newsrooms, are particularly vulnerable to governmental attacks. Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, for instance, has turned the investigatory power of the agency against the press, while the Department of Justice is pursuing investigations into nonprofits connected to left-leaning causes.

We wanted to learn more about how federal agencies like the FCC, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Justice are abusing their authority to target First Amendment rights, so we hosted a discussion with FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez and Ezra Reese, an expert in nonprofit tax law and political law from the Elias Law Group.

As Commissioner Gomez said at the outset of the event, “The First Amendment is, of course, a pillar of American democracy, and consumer access to independent, unbiased news and public information is being threatened by the government itself.” Gomez is so concerned about the Trump administration’s attacks on freedom of speech that she’s launched a “First Amendment Tour” to speak out against what she calls a campaign of censorship and control.

With respect to the FCC, in particular, Gomez explained, “Our licensing authority is being weaponized to curtail the freedom of the press, and these actions set a dangerous precedent that undermines the freedom of the press and the trust in the FCC’s role as an impartial regulator.” Carr has revived, launched, or threatened a slew of baseless “investigations” into broadcasters and public media based on their First Amendment-protected activities.

As a result, Gomez said, broadcasters are being chilled. “I have heard from broadcasters who told me that they are asking their reporters to be careful about how they are reporting about this administration because they are so afraid of being dragged before the FCC,” she said.

Nonprofit organizations, including nonprofit newsrooms, are also feeling the chilling effect of investigations by the Department of Justice intended to silence critics of the administration. Reese described the DOJ’s targeting of nonprofit organizations as “terrifying,” citing investigations of environmental groups and Democratic fundraising outlets. One particular threat to nonprofits is the possibility of being designated a “terrorist” organization based on routine protest activity, Reese said.

In many instances discussed by Gomez and Reese, officials have hijacked vague legal standards to use them in ways that would threaten the First Amendment. The FCC, for instance, has brought investigations under its “news distortion” policy or sought to use its statutory language instructing it to license the airwaves in the public interest to go after news outlets it disfavors because of their coverage.

Gomez was highly critical of these moves, explaining, “The idea that the FCC would take enforcement action or revoke a broadcast license based on editorial decisions is antithetical to the First Amendment and the Communications Act, which prohibits the FCC from censorship.” As she succinctly put it, “The administration is conflating the public interest with its interests.”

Similarly, vague standards in criminal statutes or the tax code could also be used against nonprofits, including nonprofit news outlets, Reese warned. “The current law is very permissive to the federal government, either the president or using other agencies like the secretary of state declaring organizations to be terrorist organizations,” Reese said. “The standards are very loose.”

IRS standards that nonprofits rely on to guide their activities while maintaining their nonprofit status are also often “cobbled together” using administrative rulings by the IRS known as revenue rulings. These rulings, Reese said, “could easily be reversed.” For journalism nonprofits, in particular, Reese flagged that the precedents are “ancient” and do not address social media or shorter-form online journalism. While nonprofit news outlets have significant protections under tax law, Reese warned, “Any nonprofit organization should have some idea of what they’re going to do if the IRS or somebody else comes after them.”

In addition to being prepared, both Gomez and Reese emphasized the importance of speaking out in support of First Amendment rights. Reese cited the “power in shining a light,” noting that both journalists and individuals can bring attention to attacks but also to the organizations that are doing the right thing and fighting back. Similarly, Gomez said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and we cannot allow this administration to trample all over the First Amendment in our democracy without speaking up.”

Gomez and Reese are right. The Trump administration’s attacks on the press and nonprofits are meant to cement government control by silencing dissenting voices. That’s why here at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), we’ll continue to speak up against these abuses and encourage journalists and the public to do the same. Using our freedom of speech is our best and most powerful weapon for fighting back.

61,989.

That’s how many social media posts by President Donald Trump over the past decade that journalist Stephanie Sugars has single-handedly reviewed.

At all hours of the day, Trump posts about everything from foreign policy to personnel matters. “It’s a staggering amount of posts,” said Sugars, a senior reporter at the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF). But for the past several years, Sugars has trawled through Trump’s prolific activity on X and TruthSocial in search of something specific: anti-media rhetoric.

Since Trump’s first term as president, Sugars has managed an extensive database that documents each and every anti-media post from Trump. In them, Trump sometimes attacks individual journalists. Other times, he takes aim at specific outlets or the media in general. Some posts include all three. While the content varies, Sugars said, the goal appears to be the same: to discredit the media that holds him accountable.

• Explore the dataset

“He is consolidating narrative power and asserting that he is the ultimate, if not singular, conveyor of what is actually true, which, to no one’s surprise, is what is most favorable to him,” Sugars said.

Monday, June 16, marks 10 years since Trump famously descended a golden escalator at New York City’s Trump Tower in 2015 and launched his first winning bid for the Oval Office. The first anti-media post recorded in the database came one day after “Golden Escalator Day,” on June 17, 2015. In it, Trump lambasts the New York Daily News. “Loses fortune & has zero gravitas,” he said about the paper. “Let it die!”

“He is consolidating narrative power and asserting that he is the ultimate, if not singular, conveyor of what is actually true, which, to no one’s surprise, is what is most favorable to him.”

Over the course of his ensuing campaign, Sugars said Trump primarily targeted individual journalists — high-profile ones like Megyn Kelly, Joe Scarborough, and Anderson Cooper — as well as Fox News for what Trump considered to be inadequate support.

“Once he entered office, it was a pretty stark shift,” Sugars said. Trump continued insulting individual journalists, she said, but he also began to target entire outlets, as well as the media as a whole.

For years, Trump has lambasted the mainstream media, which he accuses of bias, as “the enemy of the people.” Attacks on individual journalists and news outlets feed into those broader attacks on the media writ large, according to Sugars.

“His intention appears to be to erode our understanding of what truth is, to erode trust in the media, and to position himself as the ultimate source of truth for his supporters,” she said.

Out of all of the posts Sugars has reviewed, one from Feb. 17, 2017, sticks out to her. “The FAKE NEWS media,” Trump wrote, taking specific aim at The New York Times, CNN, and NBC, “is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people.”

That post was published at 4:32 a.m., but at some point it was deleted and replaced with a revision at 4:48 p.m. The revised post was nearly identical, except that Trump had added two more news outlets to the list of so-called enemies: ABC and CBS. “It just demonstrated this doubling down,” Sugars said.

Trump’s account on then-Twitter was, at the time, permanently suspended on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the Jan. 6 insurrection on the Capitol. At that point, the database had documented more than 2,500 anti-media posts from Trump’s campaign and first term.

“His intention appears to be to erode our understanding of what truth is, to erode trust in the media, and to position himself as the ultimate source of truth for his supporters.”

During the Biden administration, Sugars said she would have similarly monitored anti-media posts from President Joe Biden, but he didn’t make such statements. Meanwhile, Trump’s anti-media posts have continued at a similar rate since he returned to the White House in January, according to Sugars. “He picked up just where he left off,” Sugars said.

But one primary difference between Trump’s first and second term, Sugars added, is that this time around, Trump is increasingly framing “the media” as an opposition party of sorts or as partners of the Democratic Party. Sugars said she has also noticed an uptick in posts that demonize leakers and pledge that the administration will crack down on whistleblowers.

• “On social media, Trump targets the press on average once a day — for 10 years and counting”
• “All the president’s invective”
• “Trump, allies pursue multipronged campaign against the press”
• Explore the social media posts

Trump’s hostile rhetoric against the media is the backdrop for more concrete attacks on media freedom, according to Sugars, including lawsuits, investigations by the Federal Communications Commission, the co-optation of the White House press pool, and the revocation of Biden-era policies that protected journalists in leak investigations.

Given those more concrete attacks on media freedom and just how frequently Trump posts on social media, Sugars said it can be easy to dismiss the anti-press posts. But doing so would be a mistake, said Sugars, who thinks it’s important to take what Trump writes seriously because his supporters take it seriously.

“What these posts end up doing is shifting the entire window of how we are understanding the world,” she said.

Watch the full interview:

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s now the 73rd day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like. Read on for more press freedom news and and don’t forget to join us on June 9 at 2 p.m. for a conversation about the Trump administration’s attacks on broadcast licensees and nonprofits. RSVP here.

Snowden revelations take on added urgency 12 years later

Twelve years ago today, Edward Snowden — now a longtime Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) board member — blew the whistle to journalists on global mass surveillance programs, changing the way we think about the relationship between privacy and national security.

His revelations and the dialog they initiated are more relevant today than ever. We wrote about 12 of the reasons why. Read more here.

Texas might ban college kids from reporting news at night — or even talking

Texas lawmakers trying to muzzle campus protests have just passed one of the most ridiculous anti-speech laws in the country. If signed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Senate Bill 2972 would ban speech at night — from study groups to newspaper reporting — at public universities in the state.

We’re not exaggerating. In their zeal to stop college kids from protesting the Israel-Gaza war, lawmakers in the Lone Star State passed a prohibition on “engaging in expressive activities on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.” Expressive activity includes “any speech or expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment or Texas Constitution — in other words, all speech and expressive conduct. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Senior Advisor Caitlin Vogus has more in the Houston Chronicle. Read the op-ed here.

Virginia gag policy is outrageously unconstitutional

An unconstitutional policy in Greene County, Virginia, prohibits government employees from talking to the media and requires them to label anything they share with the press as “opinion,” even if it’s verifiable fact.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and the Society of Professional Journalists led a letter from a coalition of press freedom and transparency organizations urging Steve Catalano, chair of the Greene County board of supervisors, to rethink the unconstitutional and downright absurd policy. Read more here.

Press freedom coalition warns of dangers of Dobbs leak investigation

The FBI’s investigation into the 2022 publication of the Dobbs draft decision could “instill a wide-reaching chilling effect on First Amendment-protected newsgathering.”

We joined Defending Rights & Dissent and other press freedom groups to warn that the FBI’s investigation into a draft Supreme Court opinion leak could instill a widespread chilling effect on newsgathering everywhere. Read more here.

What we’re reading

Reporters aren’t exempt from ordinance forbidding presence in city park from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. (Reason). Reporters can’t control what time news happens. Under this court’s reasoning, journalists who pass a closed city park at night and observe police beating or shooting someone couldn’t enter the park to cover it. That can’t be the law.

Trump caught trashing US history to hide his secrets (MeidasTouch). FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy, Lauren Harper, warns, “The Trump administration’s goal is to become the sole source of information — even if it’s false.”

The ICE agents disappearing your neighbors would like a little privacy, please (The San Francisco Standard). This is exactly how newspapers should react when the government asks them to carry its water.

Fountain Hills officials punished a paper for coverage they don’t like (Phoenix New Times). “It’s very much unconstitutional for the government to in any way punish the press over its editorial or content decisions,” we said after officials punished reporters they don’t like by removing a press desk.

Trump asks Congress to repeal $9 billion from NPR, PBS and global aid (Washington Post). Taking money away from NPR and PBS hurts Americans who rely on them for news. Doing so because the president and other politicians disagree with their coverage violates the Constitution.

Press freedoms and civil rights under attack; and practicing civic self respect (Project Censored). Harper and FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern joined Project Censored to discuss press freedom, government secrecy, and the Freedom of Information Act.

Texas lawmakers trying to muzzle campus protests have just passed one of the most ridiculous anti-speech laws in the country, as Freedom of the Press Foundation senior adviser Caitlin Vogus explains in the Houston Chronicle.

A new bill, SB 2972, would require public universities in Texas to adopt policies prohibiting “engaging in expressive activities on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.” Expressive activity includes “any speech or expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment or Texas Constitution.

As Vogus writes, Governor Greg Abbott “should veto this unconstitutional and absurd bill before Texas has to waste taxpayers’ money defending it. And Texans should find some time — preferably at night — to exercise their First Amendment right to question the competence of the legislators who wrote or supported this bill.”

Read the whole article here.

We exposed as a lie the Trump administration’s basis for repealing restrictions on surveilling journalists to investigate leaks. The “fake news” that the administration claimed to be combating — reports that the intelligence community disputed its claim that the Venezuelan government directed the activities of the Tren de Aragua gang in the United States – was, in fact, 100 percent accurate.

But just in case that bombshell and the widespread news coverage that followed doesn’t shame the administration into changing course, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) hosted a discussion about past efforts by the government to out reporters’ sources and what journalists should expect when federal prosecutors come after their newsgathering.

Our panelists would know better than most. Former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risen fought a seven-year battle against attempts by both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations to force him to testify and reveal his sources in a leak investigation. He detailed the Obama administration’s endless litigation against him, while at the same time it engaged in secret digital surveillance of his communications.

Ryan Lizza, the founder and editor of Telos.news and a former reporter at Politico, CNN, and The New Yorker, also joined to discuss his reporting on the Obama administration’s overreach in secretly spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen, as well as efforts by former U.S. representative and current Trump sycophant Devin Nunes to obtain Lizza’s communications from tech companies in separate litigation.

And Lauren Harper, Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy at FPF, discussed the aforementioned revelations about the Trump administration’s false pretexts for cracking down on leaks, which she obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

Risen started by laying out the stakes that emerged after 9/11. “Basically everything about the American conduct in the war on terror was classified,” he explained. “Everything that we now take for granted about our body of knowledge about how the United States conducts warfare in the 21st century came through leaks or unauthorized disclosures of one form or another.”

Lizza agreed, adding that critics of the Iraq War in the current administration would not have been able to mount their criticisms without leaks. Politicians, he explained, use leaked information to form the basis for their political platforms and then turn against leakers when they’re the ones in power.

Harper disputed the administration’s apparent belief that the solution to leaks is more secrecy, not less. “Upwards of 90% of information that is classified ought not to be. So I think in some ways, we can look at leaks as a response to a broken classification system,” she said.

Risen observed that the Obama administration finally backed down from forcing him to testify not due to the law but due to bad press. Lizza had similar impressions from his coverage of the Rosen case, explaining that his reporting “got the ear of some people in the Obama administration who did not like being accused of attacking the First Amendment and going after reporters.”

As Risen explained, when the government comes after journalists it’s often not about finding out who they’re talking to, it’s about “having a chilling effect on journalism in general and making sure everybody is afraid of the government.” Added Risen, “They’ll go after journalists not because they need them, but because they want to punish them and set an example.”

It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will respond to public shaming like Obama did, but we won’t know unless we try. First, the press needs to avoid surveillance, by implementing digital security best practices when storing data and communicating electronically with sources, but also, as Risen said, going “off the grid” and communicating face-to-face whenever possible.

When that fails and the government comes after journalists’ sources anyway, it’s imperative that the press stand up for itself and its sources, by raising alarms about the risks to investigative reporting and press freedom when the government is able to snoop into reporters’ notebooks and emails. Caving to the pressure only encourages more retaliation.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

An unconstitutional policy in Greene County, Virginia, prohibits government employees from talking to the media and requires them to label anything they share with the press as “opinion” even if it’s verifiable fact.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) led a letter from a coalition of press freedom and transparency organizations urging Steve Catalano, chair of the Greene County board of supervisors, to rethink the policy. As the letter explains, similar policies have repeatedly been struck down as violating government employees’ constitutional right to speak about matters of public concern.

Seth Stern, FPF advocacy director, said: “A free press covering county government must be able to talk to experts with firsthand knowledge and get facts, not PR. Courts regularly reject policies requiring media inquiries to be routed to designated ‘public information officers.’ And courts would have rejected policies compelling people to label their speech as ‘opinion’ if anyone had tried implementing one before. Catalano doesn’t have a monopoly on facts. That requirement is not only unconstitutional but entirely absurd.”

Caroline Hendrie, executive director of SPJ, added: “Members of the public deserve timely and honest answers from their government, and journalists need access to public servants who know what they’re talking about. When agencies and officials impose unconstitutional gag rules, they disrupt the flow of information that people need to make decisions about their communities and their lives.”

You can read the letter here or below. To learn more about “censorship by PIO,” check out SPJ’s online resource, Gagged America.

Please contact FPF or SPJ if you would like further information.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s now the 66th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like. More press freedom news below.

Risking free speech won’t protect kids

Federal agencies are transforming into the speech police under President Donald Trump. So why are some Democrats supporting the Kids Online Safety Act, a recently reintroduced bill that would authorize the MAGA-controlled Federal Trade Commission to enforce censorship?

As Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) senior advocacy adviser Caitlin Vogus wrote for The Boston Globe, there’s never an excuse for supporting censorship bills, but especially when the political loyalists at the FTC are sure to abuse any power they’re given to stifle news on disfavored topics. Read the op-ed here.

We’re ready to sue if Paramount executives sell out the press

We’ve written previously about how Trump’s frivolous complaint against Paramount Global over CBS News’ editing of an interview with Kamala Harris threatens the freedoms of other news outlets. Yesterday, Trump proved it by claiming his $20 billion damages demand is based on “mental anguish” due to the answer – which doesn’t even mention him. How’s that for a “snowflake”?

As we informed Paramount Global executives last week, we plan to file a shareholder derivative lawsuit if Paramount settles. We believe any settlement – let alone the eight figure range being discussed – would be an effort to launder bribe money through the courts and would damage Paramount irreparably.

Reports this week in the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere have noted that executives fear derivative liability if they settle. They should. Read more here.

Phone companies keep journalist surveillance secret

A letter by Sen. Ron Wyden about surveillance of senators’ phone lines has an important lesson for journalists, too: Be careful in selecting your phone carrier.

Wyden wrote his Senate colleagues revealing which wireless carriers inform customers about government surveillance requests (Cape, Google Fi, and US Mobile), and which don’t (AT&T, Boost Mobile, Charter/Spectrum, Comcast/Xfinity Mobile, T-Mobile, and Verizon). Read more here.

Fallout from silencing Voice of America

As a reporter on the press freedom beat, Liam Scott chronicled abuses against journalists for Voice of America. But now, Scott himself is part of the story.

In March, Trump signed an executive order gutting the United States Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA. Scott and his colleagues have been or are set to be terminated imminently, and the website hasn’t published a new story in months.

We spoke to Scott about his unique perspective on current threats to press freedom, as both a victim and a journalist covering them. We were joined by Jason Scott of Archive Team, who is working to preserve VOA’s content should it be taken offline. Read more and watch the webinar here.

Administration abuses secrecy rules

Lauren Harper, FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, joined MeidasTouch Network’s Legal AF podcast, “Court of History,” to explain how the Trump administration is abusing secrecy to control the news narrative — and how an FPF Freedom of Information Act win revealed the truth.

Harper was joined by University of Maryland professor Jason Baron in a wide-ranging discussion with co-hosts Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz. Watch the video podcast here.

Federal police reforms repealed

The same week the Justice Department announced it was dropping federal oversight programs and investigations into more than two dozen police departments, including in Minneapolis, the city held a remembrance marking five years since the murder of George Floyd by a local police officer.

Police abuses of protestors and journalists during the demonstrations that followed Floyd’s murder led to the now-abandoned reforms, including consent decrees in Minneapolis and Louisville dealing with how police should interact with journalists covering protests and their aftermaths. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of FPF, has more. Read the Tracker’s coverage here.

What we’re reading

Greene County policy barring staff from speaking to press ‘unconstitutional,’ experts say (The Daily Progress). Local government employees should be able to talk to the press. But in Greene County, Virginia, they can’t. We told The Daily Progress that the county policy is unconstitutional.

Journalist sues LA county, ex-LA county sheriff for criminally investigating her (The Dissenter). It’s good to see journalist Maya Lau stand up for journalists’ right to not be investigated and harassed for doing their jobs.

How to stand your ground, in three (not so easy) steps (American Crisis). Institutions shouldn’t cave to Trump’s threats. Thanks to Margaret Sullivan for citing our plans to sue if Paramount settles with Trump as an example on how to stand your ground.

FBI visits me over manifesto (Ken Klippenstein). Journalists’ sources and newsgathering are none of the FBI’s business. They don’t seriously think Klippenstein was some kind of conspirator — they just want to intimidate him and other journalists.

As a reporter on the press freedom beat, Liam Scott chronicled abuses against journalists at home and abroad for Voice of America. But he was shocked when the experiences of those on the other side of the page became his own.

In March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order suddenly gutting the United States Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA. Scott and hundreds of colleagues have been or are set to be terminated imminently, and the international news service’s website hasn’t published a new story in months.

To understand more about how Trump’s anti-press tactics threaten the independence of public-interest journalism and what comes next for press freedom in the U.S. and around the world, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) hosted an online webinar May 23 with Scott and Archive Team Co-founder Jason Scott, who is working to preserve VOA’s content should it be taken offline.

“After several years of covering press freedom issues, it still feels weird to be in the midst of a press freedom issue that is affecting me and my colleagues,” Liam Scott said. “There is actually a lot that is happening here that reminds me of what I’ve reported on in other countries.”

He also expressed significant concern for colleagues who are in the U.S. on visas. Without authorization to continue working here, they will be forced to return home to countries where austere rules about free speech can lead to jail time or worse, he cautioned.

“VOA has journalists now imprisoned in Myanmar, Vietnam, and Azerbaijan, and there are other journalists from Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia who are imprisoned in other countries around the world as well, just for doing their jobs,” Liam Scott said, referring to two other international news services long supported by the U.S. government. “So my immediate concern was if VOA and its sister outlets shut down, who is going to advocate for these reporters?”

Preserving VOA’s online content

While the fate of VOA’s employees hangs in the balance, so too does its website, a resource for readers who live in regions of censorship and can’t access this information anywhere else. Amid fears that the site and the reporting it hosts will vanish from the internet and leave behind thousands of stories, efforts are underway to preserve its contents.

Archive Team members, including Jason Scott, have created an “online footprint” of VOA’s website that contains over 400 gigabytes worth of stories. It’s paramount to ensure a replica of the site exists before its potential takedown, he said, because the work cannot be done retroactively.

“The conversation about whether or not to save something usually stops once it’s gone,” he added.

As a general rule of thumb, Jason Scott recommended that journalists keep multiple copies of their work in different locations, in the event they lose access to where their work is published.

Doing so is especially important in the current digital climate under the Trump administration, which has scrubbed countless federal webpages.

In that sense, said Jason Scott, it bears resemblance to a startup company.

“You move fast, you break things, you work it out later. If something can’t be explained to you in two seconds, get rid of it,” he added. This slash-and-burn approach, a Trump administration hallmark, can wreak havoc for preservation efforts because it evokes a digital “entropy” that can change data access on a dime, said Jason Scott.

While trawling internet data can be exhausting, so can reporting through censorship. Liam Scott, who has continued his work on the press freedom beat at outlets elsewhere, said it’s important “to not get fatigued” and to remember that threats and retaliation are often reactions to strong journalism, which underscores the need to protect the rights of those doing the work.

“Attacks on journalists are also attacks on the public,” he said. “Because when you’re attacking a journalist, you’re attacking the information that they’re trying to share with their audience — information that is so important for how we live our lives.”

Just as accountability is met with reprisal, archiving data is met with unpredictability. As the Archive Team compiles the work of countless VOA journalists who risked their lives to report the truth, Jason Scott said to remember that data preservation is an uphill battle. The power to decide what stays online often belongs to those with the most effective keys to the internet: powerful institutions like the government.

“Data is an incredible devil’s bargain,” he said. “Entropy is the house, and the house always wins.”