Dear Friend of Press Freedom,
With so much of importance going on, it’s hard to know what to lead a press freedom newsletter with. Here’s the latest, in no particular order.
Hostile takeover of press pool drowns First Amendment
What began as a petty (but blatantly unconstitutional) spat with The Associated Press over what it calls the Gulf of Mexico escalated into a hostile takeover by the Trump administration of the White House press pool. Breaking with decades of precedent, the administration, not the White House Correspondents’ Association, will select which reporters get access to the president.
Among the first cuts were the AP and Reuters, two leading wire services. We spoke to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Vice President of Editorial Kirstin McCudden about the consequences for news outlets and readers of losing access to stories from wire services.
As FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern told DW’s The Day, Trump “wants news outlets to be dependent on his whims and favors … It allows the White House to dangle access over journalists’ heads and punish those who don’t toe the line.”
Senate must not confirm Ed Martin as DC’s top prosecutor
We helped lead a coalition of rights groups in a letter asking senators to reject the nomination of Ed Martin for U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
As interim U.S. attorney, Martin has weaponized his office to threaten critics of Elon Musk in disregard of the First Amendment, Justice Department policy, and rules of professional conduct for prosecutors.
Stern said that Martin, who sees prosecutors as “Trump’s lawyers,” would use his office as “a vehicle for selective, anti-speech prosecutions and petty retribution rather than the pursuit of justice.”
The National Archives and the Trump administration
Our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper joined NPR’s 1A to discuss the Trump administration’s attacks on the National Archives and the history it preserves.
She explained that the archive “plays a key role in ensuring that the public has access to information about government activities,” adding that “We cannot meaningfully engage in self-government when we don’t know what the government is doing.”
Media uproar forces Mississippi city to back down from its assault on press freedom
We wrote last week about Clarksdale, Mississippi’s frivolous defamation lawsuit against The Clarksdale Press Register, capped off by a ridiculous court order that the paper delete an editorial.
As Stern told NPR, “It should take five minutes of legal research to figure out that this ruling was unconstitutional.” After NPR, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast and plenty of others called attention to the story — and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression agreed to represent the Press Register — the city and judge finally did their homework and dropped the case.
Press Register publisher Wyatt Emmerich said it best: “Let this be a lesson: if you try to silence one voice in America, a hundred more will take up the call.”
What we’re reading
Anthony Brown’s bill may have ‘chilling effect’ on government transparency, critics say (Fox Baltimore). A Maryland bill would make it easier for the state to ignore public records requests and sue requesters. It shouldn’t become law. FPF’s Lauren Harper explained why to Fox Baltimore.
How Donald Trump is bending America’s news media (Newsweek). FPF’s Seth Stern told Newsweek that “Just because we've got a thin-skinned president doesn’t mean we need to have a thin-skinned press. Journalists, hopefully, got into the profession because they wanted to … rise to moments like these.”
DOGE tries to expand use of pseudo-secrets (The Classifieds). After the Department of Government Efficiency took over the U.S. Agency for International Development, agency emails started automatically including a “sensitive but unclassified” warning. This will create an untold number of needless pseudo-secrets and make it harder to get public records.
Trump’s control of press pool, ban of AP clearly aim to drown free speech (Chicago Sun-Times). If you’re on an editorial board and haven’t spoken out about these authoritarian antics, look at your last five editorials. Are they all about something more important than the First Amendment’s survival? If not, what are you waiting for?
Alderman’s office kicks reporter out of meeting on controversial bar reopening (Block Club Chicago). Good for Francia Garcia Hernandez and Block ClubChicago for fighting back with ink. Journalists often don’t want to make themselves the story, but they’re not — politicians are the ones doing that.
Nevada Supreme Court sides with RJ in jail surveillance video case (Las Vegas Review-Journal). Of course the press can publish pictures of prison guards. We don’t have secret police in the United States — including behind bars.
Biden Justice Department downplayed U.K. demand for Apple ‘back door’ (The Washington Post). Turns out the Biden Justice Department misled Congress about a secret United Kingdom order requiring Apple to break encryption. How many times will agencies lie about surveillance powers before Congress holds them accountable?
TX lawmakers could strip you of free speech and make you pay big legal fees (Austin American-Statesman). Texans of all political stripes should oppose efforts to make it easier for the powerful to harass their critics with frivolous lawsuits.
Idaho House unanimously passes media shield law bill protecting journalists’ sources (Idaho Capital Sun). Red and blue states alike recognize the need for journalist-source confidentiality. Let’s hope Idaho’s shield bill gets across the finish line.
