Dear Friend of Press Freedom:

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

A journalist’s fight for Epstein transparency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Age verification law puts journalists at risk

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

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

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

Brendan Carr isn’t fooling anyone

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we're reading

Court halts Pentagon rule requiring escorts for journalists

The New York Times

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

‘Not the time and place for a political speech’

Columbia Journalism Review

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

Trump DOJ withdraws subpoenas as case collapses!

Legal AF

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

Are you subscribed to our other newsletters? Sign up for news on excessive government secrecy, and for digital security tips and advice at the link below.

Subscribe here