The House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed journalist Seth Harp to testify before Congress after he identified a Delta Force commander, who he said was involved in the United States military operation that kidnapped Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro.  

Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who asked for the subpoena, contended that Harp “doxxed” the high-ranking officer in a post that he shared on the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Additionally, Luna accused Harp of “leaking classified information regarding the Venezuela mission, Operation Absolute Resolve” and celebrated the support from Democrats and Republicans, including Ranking Member Robert Garcia.

The subpoena was approved in a voice vote as part of a motion that included subpoenas for executors of the Jeffrey Epstein estate. Multiple representatives voted no, despite being told to support the motion by Garcia. However, it was called for the yeas.

A day later, Luna referred Harp to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution and baselessly accused him of violating the Espionage Act.

Harp is the author of “The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces,” a book that exposed over a dozen cases of Army officers involved in drug trafficking at the base where the Green Berets, Special Forces, and Joint Special Operations Command are headquartered. 

“A subpoena? Yawn,” Harp responded. “I'm an experienced federal litigator and would be happy to explain to Rep. Luna, who's not a lawyer, that civilians can't ‘leak classified intel,’ and that you can't ‘doxx’ someone by posting their own online biography.”

Harp further stated "no law protects his identity from disclosure. All I posted was his online biography, which clearly identifies him as an elite U.S. Army Special Forces officer. If Delta Force didn't want his identity to become known, then they shouldn't have put his bio up on a website.

"The fact that I have not suffered any legal repercussions demonstrates that what I did was perfectly legal and appropriate," Harp declared. "I'm an investigative reporter; it's not my job to keep secrets for the government or to censor myself for the convenience of high-ranking officials. Nor would I have deleted what I posted except that X locked my account and forced me to delete it in order to log back in."

The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), Defending Rights and Dissent (DRAD), and Florida’s First Amendment Foundation condemned the subpoena. 

“Journalists don’t work for the government and can’t ‘leak’ government information,” Seth Stern, the advocacy director for DRAD insisted. “[T]o the contrary, it’s their job to find and publish the news, whether the government wants it made public or not. Identifying government officials by name is not doxxing or harassment, no matter how many times Trump allies say otherwise.”

Stern recalled, “In 2024, the House unanimously passed the PRESS Act to protect journalists from subpoenas about their newsgathering. The bill died after Trump ordered the Senate to kill it on Truth Social. Apparently, so did the principles of Reps. Luna, Garcia and their colleagues.”

Chip Gibbons, policy director for DRAD, said Luna’s subpoena against a reporter was “clearly designed to chill and intimidate a journalist doing some of the most significant investigative reporting on U.S. Special Forces.”

“Her own statement makes clear that far from having a valid legislative purpose, she seeks to hold a journalist ‘accountable’ for what is essentially reporting she dislikes. Her rationale is based on easily debunkable disinformation,” Gibbons added. 

Indeed, Luna shared a screen shot of a Mediaite post with a clickbait headline that laundered this “easily debunkable disinformation.”

What Harp initially shared was the commander’s name and a publicly available online biography. He wrote, “This is the current commander of Delta Force, whose men just invaded as sovereign country, killed a bunch of innocent people, and kidnapped the rightful president.”

Part of the objection undoubtedly stemmed from the fact that the commander was not identified to praise him but rather to condemn his alleged role in the operation. (For example, in 2012, an anonymous Navy SEAL wrote a book on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Their identity was quickly revealed by Fox News, however, no member of Congress ever subpoenaed anyone at Fox News.) 

Soldier of Fortune, which was founded by former Green Beret Robert K. Brown in 1975, published an editorial by the magazine’s current owner Susan Katz Keating.

Keating, a former senior editor for defense, justice, and international relations at the conservative Washington Examiner, scolded Harp. “Soldier of Fortune never has argued that military operations should be immune from scrutiny. But there is a difference between analyzing a mission and exposing the identity of an elite operator.” 

“The former is journalism. The latter departs from long-established standards of professional restraint. In national security, the consequences of that exposure do not disappear when a post is deleted,” Keating argued.

In a comment that Soldier of Fortune included from Harp, he asserted, “In no way did I ‘doxx’ the officer. I did not post any personally identifying information about him, such as his birthday, social security number, home address, phone number, email address, the names of his family members, or pictures of his house. What I posted is still online on Duke University’s website for all the world to see.” 

Nonetheless, there was a backlash that was broadly spurred by conservative media influencers, which led “X admins” to lock Harp’s account. To regain access to his account, he had to delete several posts.

The social media platform made him remove the online biography that he posted of the Delta Force commander, “a full-bird colonel, whose identity is not classified and which anyone skilled” at the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) could find out. 

Harp had posted the “records of deceased special operators” as well. These were “obtained through FOIA,” “specifically said  “‘Delta Force’ on them,” and had no redactions. “In the spirit of fairness, I also posted my own service record. X required me to delete those posts, too.”

Bobby Block, executive director of Florida’s First Amendment Foundation, maintained, “This is a naked attempt to intimidate a journalist for doing his job. Rep. Luna’s own words make clear this subpoena has no legitimate legislative purpose — it’s about punishing reporting she doesn’t like. That kind of abuse of power strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and threatens the public’s right to know.”

Again, a bipartisan group in Congress probably would not have subpoenaed Harp reporter if he had openly supported the military incursion. Yet Harp did not mince words when expressing his viewpoint.

Delta Force, acting on President Trump’s unlawful orders, which contravened every principle of international law and sovereignty, as well as the Congress’s prerogative to declare war, invaded Venezuela, killed scores of Venezuelans who posed no threat to the United States, and kidnapped the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, as well as his wife.”

Every civilian official and military officer in the American chain of command who participated in this outrageously illegal and provocative act of war—which a supermajority of Americans oppose—is the legitimate subject of journalistic scrutiny, and X has no business censoring my timely and accurate reporting.

It is worth recalling that frequently U.S. officials and even members of the press accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of “leaking” information, despite the fact that Assange never had access to government databases. 

By conflating sources and journalists, like in the Assange case, officials like Luna make it easier for the government to pursue repressive actions that infringe upon freedom of the press. 

All governments lie. Seymour Hersh built his journalism career around the creed that it’s a reporter’s job to expose government lies, especially those told by the United States government. 

Hersh unraveled a number of major cover-ups and earned a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. And yet, despite repeated lawless and violent acts throughout history, prestige media organizations remain reluctant to encourage journalism that questions the U.S. military and broader security state. Most editors and producers shun reporters, who dare to follow in Hersh’s footsteps. 

“Cover-Up,” directed by Laura Poitras and Mark Obenhaus, takes Hersh’s work over the last half century and examines what Poitras describes as the “long history of cycles of impunity, of mass atrocities that are committed and nobody is held accountable.”

Its importance has only increased with the U.S. military’s attack on Venezuela and the CIA kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. In fact, the New York Times and the Washington Post reportedly knew about the operation before it took place and declined to expose it. Eighty people in Venezuela died.

The film opens with a cover-up that few people may attribute to Hersh: the Dugway incident, where the U.S. Army lied about chemical weapons testing that killed 6000 sheep. The sequence is composed of declassified footage and archival interviews, including a clip of a much younger Hersh, who refuses to back down when challenged.

A third of the documentary focuses on the My Lai massacre with Hersh recounting how he came to learn about the atrocity. The U.S. military portrayed the incident as the result of one “bad apple.” Hersh further documented the “kill anything that moves” policy in Vietnam and demonstrated that William Calley was a scapegoat. Still, U.S. Army Chief of Staff William Westmoreland retired and never faced prosecution for war crimes. 

Another significant portion of the film recounts Hersh’s work for the New York Times in the 1970s. Right after he was hired, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wanted to speak with Hersh. He was afraid of the reporter who had uncovered the My Lai massacre. 

Kissinger's fear was valid. Hersh spoke to sources, who described the secretary's role in economic warfare against Salvador Allende’s government in Chile. He also learned about a document called the “Family Jewels” which detailed “every criminal act” that violated American laws—foreign assassinations, domestic spying, and even mind control. This reporting sent the CIA into a meltdown and triggered the Church Committee investigation. 

A Through Line From Vietnam To Iraq To Gaza

The film is at its best when Poitras and Obenhaus prod Hersh to be honest and go where he does not want to go. Like when he says, “You’re getting me to think about things that I don’t want to think about,” as he revisits his reporting on the Vietnam War and how the U.S. military took young men and turned them into murderers. Or when he says, “I was very happy not talking about myself” and thinks he’s shared too much about what he’s done as a reporter.

Near the beginning, we see stacks of reporting materials from different eras of Hersh's career. Poitras and Obenhaus were granted extraordinary access that included his notes. However, Hersh doesn't like that they have been looking at the "pads" with names "all over them." He bristles when the filmmakers ask why sources were willing to meet with him.

It makes perfect sense why Hersh would react in this manner. Twenty years ago, he was opposed to any documentary crew getting near him because it could be risky for his sources. Yet these questions honor the anonymous sources who defied a culture of violence and spoke to Hersh. That makes the answers to these questions fundamental to the film.

During another section, Poitras and Obenhaus highlight Hersh’s award-winning reporting on Abu Ghraib. It is made more compelling by Camille Lo Sapio, who provided Hersh with Abu Ghraib photos and appears in the film to recount her decision to become a source. 

Hersh has lost a lot of credibility since the 1990s. That is partly due to two episodes involving unreliable sources, which the film addresses. 

His 1997 book, “The Dark Side of Camelot,” nearly included forged documents between President John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe. In 2013, he wrote a report that sought to undermine a U.S. intelligence assessment that concluded Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had attacked civilians in Ghouta with sarin gas. On camera, Hersh says, “Let’s call that very much wrong.”

These are blemishes in an otherwise legendary career, and one could argue that those in journalism, who view him as a pariah, scorn Hersh because there exists a culture within the news media that makes it harder to forgive his mistakes. 

Defying A Half Century Of Self-Censorship

At the age of 85, Hersh has turned to Substack to continue his reporting. He still speaks with sources in an effort to uncover atrocities and unravel cover-ups. For example, in the documentary, we see Hersh speak to an anonymous source who describes how the U.S.-backed Israeli military has used quadcopter to target Palestinian children, which evokes the My Lai massacre. 

Poitras and Obenhaus are keenly aware of the through line that may be drawn from Vietnam to Iraq to Gaza. The continuity between these wars not only implicates the U.S. government but also calls into question a U.S. press that tends to provide cover for people in power.

From the start of Hersh’s career, he distinguished himself by refusing to self-censor in order to fit in among colleagues at the Pentagon. He saw little value in Pentagon briefings and learned to go find young officers, talk sports, and then eventually they would share things like it’s “Murder Incorporated there.” 

Officials consistently dreaded what Hersh would find out next. One incredible example, as Hersh reveals, involved a source named Bob Kiley, who is no longer alive. Kiley spied on student activists for the CIA. Hersh says James Angleton, chief of the CIA’s counterintelligence department, denied everything and offered him two stories if he would not reveal the massive and illegal spying program known as Operation CHAOS.

Hersh ultimately left the Times because the newspaper constantly avoided controversy. In 1974, the Times withheld his story on the Glomar explorer at the request of CIA Director William Colby. When Hersh took an interest in corruption at Gulf and Western, Rosenthal and others at the newspaper were uncomfortable with how it scrutinized corporate America. So Rosenthal tried to kill the story by making Hersh come up with an extra source for each major claim.

While at the New Yorker, Hersh was deeply bothered by the “puff stories” that ran in the magazine instead of several of his stories on the war in Iraq. The invasion and occupation was “the moral issue of our time,” and Hersh could not believe that the magazine would not do everything to stop it. 

In 2004, CBS News’s “60 Minutes” prepared a segment on Abu Ghraib torture. But government officials claimed if photos of detainee abuse aired would “hurt the war.” Hersh was also working on a similar story for the New Yorker. He called up “60 Minutes” and promised to expose the program’s complicity unless the network broadcast the report as planned. The segment aired, blew open a scandal, and won a Peabody Award. 

Of course, the timid nature of the prestige media, including the Times, could be understood by the fact that outlets published disinformation and propaganda that helped President George W. Bush’s administration make the case for invading Iraq in 2003.

Times executive editor Bill Keller delayed a report on NSA warrantless wiretapping by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, who both worked for the newspaper. The bombshell report was eventually published. It described impeachable offenses and won a Pulitzer Prize, though all of this took place after Bush was reelected in 2004.

The following year Washington Post reporter Dana Priest exposed a network of CIA “black site” prisons, where detention and torture in the global “war on terrorism” had occurred. But the Post undermined Priest by refusing to publish “the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials.” 

In 2025, CBS News Editor-In-Chief Bari Weiss censored a story on U.S.-backed torture and abuse of deported immigrants at El Salvador’s “Terrorism Confinement Center. Weiss would undoubtedly help the government cover up the next Abu Ghraib scandal, and she is presently destroying whatever prestige the network’s flagship program may have left.

Journalists, especially those banned from the Pentagon because they would not sign Secretary Pete Hegseth’s loyalty pledge, could respond to the lawlessness of the Trump administration as Hersh would. They could cultivate sources, take advantage of secure submission systems, and publish information that might unravel a military-backed conspiracy to steal Venezuela’s oil.

But if any reporters followed the example set by Hersh, they would have to be critical of more than just Trump and his behavior. They would have to take on a military industrial-complex that they are inclined to champion. 

Clearly, the potential for someone like Hersh to obtain credentials is why Hegseth adopted such a censorious media policy. And given the present moment, the main takeaway of “Cover-Up” may be that Hersh is a cautionary figure.

In a country that constantly acts as an unaccountable warfare state, there can be a press. But it most certainly will not be independent.

If you are interested in additional film writing, I have launched a dedicated space over at Substack called The Weekly Matinee.

The articles may not always correspond with what I have traditionally covered at The Dissenter. Some of the posts may even be more amusing and inconsequential. But I welcome anyone who shares my love of movies and how they open our eyes to the world.

A whistleblower alleges that a federal immigration agency has prematurely closed numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records in order to fake that it is complying with a court order. 

On December 19, 2025, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) submitted a whistleblower disclosure from a “disabled Marine Corps infantry combat veteran,” who has served over a decade at the United Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) National Records Center (NRC). 

The disclosure was submitted to U.S. senators that chair the Judiciary and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committees. It refers to the whistleblower as “Frank Armstrong."

After raising concerns, Armstrong has allegedly faced a “gag order and retaliation,” including a request from his supervisor to no longer engage with the Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC). (The OCC is a legal program of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of the General Counsel.) 

“Mr. Armstrong has put himself at risk internally by raising his concerns repeatedly to supervisors and NRC leadership. He brings these concerns to Congress seeking justice and accountability,” GAP adds.

In 2020, Judge William Orrick III of the Northern District of California issued an order as part of the Nightingale v. USCIS case. The order required the USCIS to meet certain deadlines for requests of “Alien Files,” or A-Files.

The files consist of “immigration history, applications, supporting documents, and enforcement records” maintained by DHS, and immigrants rely upon them during asylum, deportation, or detention hearings.

Orrick recognized that the failure to process FOIA requests undermined “the fairness of immigration proceedings, particularly for the vast number of noncitizens who navigate [the U.S.] immigration system without assistance of counsel.” He also ordered the government to eliminate USCIS and ICE backlogs within 60 days. 

USCIS issued a compliance report on December 15, 2025, that claimed to have reduced the “A-File FOIA backlog by 99.96%, from thousands of pending requests to just two,” according to GAP. 

However, Armstrong claims that he saw an email sent by a “supervisor” on May 27, 2025, which allegedly stated, “Here's a way to close 99% of FOIA requests as failure to comply.” The supervisor explained that a “2022 regulatory change” could be used to deny requesters records if they do not “specify their country of citizenship and residency.” 

Agency employees were further encouraged to close FOIA requests for “reasons including listing an attorney's address, inverting month and day in a birthdate, or minor spelling variations in a parent's name, even when the requester's A-Number matches agency records.”

“Closing cases prematurely based on minor discrepancies is extremely prejudicial to requesters because of their immense informational disadvantage compared to the agency,” GAP states.

“The information the agency has could me many years old, so requesters may no longer be familiar with what the documentation the agency possesses says," GAP additionally contends. "Furthermore, they may never have had a meaningful opportunity to review the information the government possesses about them; for instance, to determine whether a border agent incorrectly listed their data.”

For what it’s worth, Armstrong utilized the proper channels. In September, he challenged the new policy and how it violates the law. He exchanged emails with the “supervisory attorney” at the OCC, who was unaware of the changes to fulfilling FOIA requests. Armstrong later reported the policy change to the DHS Office of the Inspector General as well.

Armstrong emailed his supervisor in November to object to the policy of closing FOIA requests. On December 9, he received a low performance rating for the previous fiscal year in alleged retaliation. 

The policy adopted in May allegedly allows USCIS to invoke privacy and law enforcement exemptions to prevent immigrants from obtaining copies of “marriage certificates, joint bank statements, tax forms, portions of immigration court hearing transcripts and enforcement documents.”

It also allegedly permits USCIS to hide correspondence that USCIS may send to immigrant attorneys, or receive from such attorneys.

“Withholding attorney correspondence prejudices noncitizens who may no longer have communication with previous attorneys and need to know what information was provided to the government on their behalf,” GAP argues. 

Furthermore, USCIS may label documents provided by noncitizens in “the language of their country of origin and not translated into English” as “out of scope” so that they do not have to share those records. 

There is a substantial risk that Armstrong will be fired, especially since his allegations against the Trump administration are now public. But as militarized federal agents continue to abduct thousands upon thousands of people from their communities, it is crucial that immigrants are able to defend themselves in court. 

“In practice, the lack of access to A-Files makes it harder for noncitizens to apply for immigration benefits or defend themselves from removal,” wrote Raul Pinto of the American Immigration Council. “It can also lead to delays in adjudications in immigration courts, as immigration attorneys must request continuances of court hearings due to their inability to review their clients’ immigration history.”

“Denying timely access to A-Files, and the information contained in them, erodes due process, a right guaranteed under our Constitution and a cornerstone of our democracy," Pinto concluded.

“The Israeli army is the worst enemy of journalists,” according to a year-end analysis of attacks on global press freedom from Reporters Without Borders (RSF). 

RSF stated in their 2025 report [PDF], “Over the last 12 months, the Israeli army has been responsible for nearly half (43%) of all journalists killed worldwide.” Military forces specifically targeted 29 media professionals.

To emphasize this staggering statistic, RSF highlighted a double-tap strike on Gaza’s Nasser Hospital that occurred on August 25, 2025. Israeli forces targeted the part of the hospital that was known to “house a workspace for journalists.” 

Reuters photojournalist Hossam al-Masri was killed. Mariam Abu Daqqa, a freelance journalist who was contracted by the Associated Press, arrived at the scene to “report on rescue operations.” Eight minutes after the first strike, Abu Daqqa and Al Jazeera photojournalist Mohamed Salama were killed. 

The double-tap strike, a war crime, also killed Moaz Abu Taha a journalist contracted by NBC, and Abu Aziz, a freelance journalist who contributed reporting to Middle East Eye. 

As of December 19, 2025, at least 260 journalists have been killed by Israeli military forces carrying out an ethnic cleansing campaign against the people of Gaza. Military operations began in October 2023 following an attack by Hamas operatives, which the Israeli government knew about a year before it occurred but did not prevent.

In RSF’s report on 2025, Claudia Sheinbaum’s “failure to protect journalists” in Mexico and Russian drone attacks on reporters in Ukraine were described as the next biggest cause of deaths.

Nine media professionals were killed in Mexico, and three journalists in Ukraine were killed by Russia. Yet compared to Mexico and Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Israeli army killed more than twice as many journalists.

Sixty-seven journalists in 22 countries were specifically targeted due to their work as media professionals.

Previously, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) raised alarm when assessing journalist deaths in 2024. “At least 124 journalists and media workers were killed last year, nearly two-thirds of them Palestinians killed by Israel.”

“More than one-third – 43 – of all journalists and media workers killed were freelancers – another grim new record for self-employed members of the press who often face the most danger because they have the fewest resources,” CPJ added. “Thirty-one of those freelancers were killed in Gaza, rising from 14 in 2023. Many Gaza journalists became freelancers after their outlets were destroyed, their coverage proving crucial for global media outlets because Israel has barred foreign journalists from entering the Strip except on tightly controlled visits led by the military.”

International journalists are still banned from entering Gaza, unless they agree to be escorted by the Israeli military. France 24 correspondent Noga Tarnopolsky, who went on a "press tour," told CPJ, “Everything was staged.”

“We didn’t see a single person, we couldn’t document anything. This was not journalistic work— it was theater," Tarnopolsky further declared.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), which counts the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate (PJS) as an affiliate, documented 110 journalist deaths in 2025, which is higher than the number in RSF’s report. However, a similar percentage of deaths—46 percent—occurred as a result of the Israeli army.

To illustrate Israel’s attacks on journalism, IFJ highlighted the Israeli military’s assassination of Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif in August. He was targeted just prior to the invasion of Gaza City. 

Al-Sharif was one of dozens of courageous journalists in Gaza, who made the ultimate sacrifice to report on the daily bloodshed. “We had two options: either stop the coverage to protect ourselves and our families from being targeted or continue the coverage. We chose to continue,” he said in October 2024.

The United States government has stood by the Israeli military as it targets and kills journalists, providing over $20 billion in arms and other military aid during the past two years.

IFJ and the National Union of French Journalists filed a lawsuit in France in early December to discourage attacks by the Israeli military on French journalists. It broadly accused the Israeli government of war crimes against the press. 

The lawsuit was applauded by PJS, which has urged journalist unions throughout the world to file complaints in their national courts and urge their governments to take action to protect “all Palestinian and international journalists working in the region.”

The vast majority of journalists or media professionals arrested in 2025 were released and never charged with any criminal offenses, according to a year-end report from the United States Press Freedom Tracker. 

Thirty-two journalists were detained or arrested and primarily while covering protests. That number was down from 50 detentions or arrests in 2024.

Still, Stephanie Sugars, a senior reporter for the Tracker, emphasizes that each detention and arrest should be regarded as “a warning flare that something fundamental is shifting in how authorities police information and those who gather it.”

Seventeen reporters were arrested or detained without charge. It was the month with the highest number of “detentions in a single month since April 2021. Crucially, each affected journalist was deprived, at least temporarily, of their ability to observe, document and report,” according to Sugars.

In particular, the Tracker documented "at least 10 journalists," who “were detained” in Los Angeles on June 9. They were kettled “by police, encircled and led out of the protest area with their hands behind their backs.” 

Arrests in both L.A. and Chicago largely stemmed from ICE or border patrol agents, and two U.S. courts responded by issuing injunctions against agents to curb attacks on journalists. 

U.S. District Judge Hernán Vera found that agents in L.A. had “unleashed crowd control weapons indiscriminately and with surprising savagery.” 

During a hearing in Chicago, where evidence of attacks against journalists was presented, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis made it clear. The “lawlessness” was coming from ICE agents, not journalists or even demonstrators. 

Independent journalist Crystal Heath was one of the journalists arrested while covering an ICE protest in June. As the Tracker reported, prosecutors declined to pursue criminal charges. But that could change next year before the “statute of limitations runs out, and she was advised to call each month to confirm whether her case had been reactivated.”

“It’s outrageous how the whole court system and apparatus has allowed these sort of charges to continue to hang over my head, allowing this sort of stifling of our First Amendment [rights] to continue,” Heath told the Tracker. 

Another example that Sugars highlights is Dave Decker, a freelance photojournalist for “FRONTLINE” on PBS. 

In October, Decker was assaulted in the Chicago suburb of Broadview, where an ICE detention center is located. Illinois State Police tackled him and tried to arrest him after he was hit with a baton multiple times. 

Decker traveled to Miami in November to cover an protest at an ICE facility in Miami. He told the Tracker that he was arrested by sheriff’s deputies and held in tight flex cuffs for eight hours (three of those hours his hands were behind his back). 

Unlike the Illinois State Police, when officers realized that he was press, that did not end the abuse. Sugars emphasizes that his status as a journalist made no difference to them. 

Sugars further outlines the extent of the impact on Decker’s work as a freelance photojournalist: 

For Decker, in his Miami arrest, first there was the potential damage to his equipment, including the two cameras and five lenses around his neck, worth around $16,000. Then there was the unexpected financial toll; the photojournalist had to pay a total $1,250 for bonds on the two charges and another $600 to retrieve his car from an impound lot.

Most frustrating by far, Decker told the Tracker, was his inability to get his photos and videos to the three outlets he had been on assignment for that day. “News is only news for a couple hours, when it’s breaking like that,” he said.

The systematic attacks on journalists covering protests were encouraged by President Donald Trump’s administration. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem insisted that documenting or videoing ICE agents could be considered “violence.”

ICE agents repeatedly treated the presence of reporters, as well as demonstrators, as a threat and claimed that merely being in the vicinity of them constituted “interference” with a law enforcement action. This is all in spite of the First Amendment right to record police.

Next year, we can expect routine incidents against standard newsgathering that occur under any presidential administration. Like the journalists at Redbankgreen in New Jersey, who were charged with crimes for refusing to unpublish details related to an expunged arrest. Or journalist David Flash in Fort Davis, Texas, who was handcuffed and removed from a county commissioners court meeting. Incidents like that will happen again.

But the most substantial threat to freedom of the press will still be ICE, the Border Patrol, and aligned local and state police forces, and that threat will extend beyond arrests and detentions to include efforts to deport noncitizen journalists, which chillingly happened in the case of Mario Guevara. 

With Netflix’s bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount’s hostile offer for Warner Bros., a report from the Roosevelt Institute calls urgent attention to the way in which media consolidation and deregulation has impacted freedom of the press.

The Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank, contends that the press clause in the First Amendment has all but disappeared. Instead, it is now widely accepted in government that the First Amendment defines the “freedom of private entities to operate without public accountability, rather than the right to know—citizens’ affirmative right to freely accessible, trustworthy, and democratically essential information.”

“The Political Economy of the US Media System” [PDF] was authored by Victor Pickard, a media professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Bilal Baydoun and Shahrzad Shams of the Roosevelt Institute, whose work for the Roosevelt Institute focuses on defending democracy.  

As the authors outline, “[T]he structure of our laissez-faire media system—touted as a bulwark against the tyranny of state-run media—has not protected against threats from the state. Both public and commercial media outlets today face serious threats from the Trump administration beyond regulatory action alone, as it has pursued lawsuits widely believed to be ideologically motivated against the BBC, CBS, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal and defunded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”

“The administration has launched what amounts to a systematic campaign against press freedom, combining legal harassment, access restrictions, funding cuts, and rhetorical attacks to undermine independent journalism. While Trump himself has long delegitimized the press as ‘fake news,’ the current assault, backed by the power of the federal government and all the resources at its disposal, is an escalation that threatens the institutional foundations of American journalism.”

The authors maintain that part of this escalation involves “rule by deal over rule of law,” where “commercial logics that animate our media system” subject media companies to “political jawboning, threats, and attacks.”

In 2004, media scholar and media reform advocate Robert McChesney declared, “Unique problems accompany constitutional protection of a free press.” He pointed out that these problems “tend to be shunted aside when the discussion is framed solely in terms of free speech.” That serves market capitalism, however, the report addresses how this is inconsistent with “both the intent of the framers and the history of the US press system.” 

The authors focus their attention on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices have time and time again nested press rights under the speech clause or failed to even grapple with the state of press freedom.  

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has “interpreted the Speech Clause not as a tool for empowering everyday people to speak their mind and enjoy access to a diversity of viewpoints, but as a vehicle for advancing deregulatory, corporate causes.”

A prime example is the lawsuit brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Co-filed by then-Representative J.D Vance, according to the Lever News emphasizes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues “party-coordinated contribution limits violate their free speech rights.”

“Precluding coordination by parties and their candidates undermines the availability and accuracy of electoral communication,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce declared. “In this way, free association, free expression, and free enterprise are deeply intertwined.”

To the report’s authors, this represents a negative approach to the First Amendment that fails to fully protect press rights. This approach serves powerful corporate interests by declining to affirm any government obligation to enact policies that would “foster a speech environment or press system that supports a vibrant and inclusive democratic society.”

“In prioritizing the expressive rights of corporations over the informational rights of citizens, viewing the press as functionally the same as an individual speaker, the court has entrenched a deregulatory logic that structurally favors concentrated media power and commercial gatekeeping,” the report additionally states. 

This dynamic fuels pressure on media organizations and makes companies vulnerable to threats from FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who has weaponized regulatory action to suppress journalism and silence those who speak out against the Trump administration. 

It was the “neoliberal revolution” that by the 1980s led the FCC to allow “market forces” to effectively determine what was in the public interest. FCC Chair Mark Fowler referred to a television as nothing more than a “toaster with pictures” and “recast the media audience from citizens fulfilling the role of self-government to consumers of a good like any other.” All of which was backed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 brought about one of the most intense periods of media consolidation in the history of the telecommunications industry. That set the stage for the corporate libertarian policies promoted by Trump's FCC.

But in the era of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the FCC actually had the “Mayflower rule” that “prohibited broadcasters from engaging in political or partisan editorializing.” There were “structural limits on ownership and contracts” that were aimed at ensuring the media played a constructive role in democracy. Media ownership rules weren't a tool for extracting political favors, and the Supreme Court even upheld such public interest regulation in NBC v. United States in 1943.

Anti-communism hysteria combined with corporate libertarianism, as Congress and the FBI scrutinized members of the FCC. “The leading progressive at the FCC, Clifford Durr, effectively resigned from the agency in 1948 in protest over President Harry S. Truman’s loyalty oath order.”

The Mayflower rule was replaced in 1949 after political attacks. The new rule was known as the “Fairness Doctrine.” It was imperfect, yet much like public broadcasting in the United States it was relentlessly opposed by a right-wing conservative faction until Reagan eliminated it entirely.

Trump proudly defunded public media, particularly the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). It’s a predictable outcome, given how Republicans waged a decades-long culture war to discredit and curtail public service broadcasting.

As McChesney outlined in 1997, “[T]he attack on public service broadcasting is part and parcel of the current attack on all non-commercial, public service institutions and values.”

“Neoliberalism is not merely a set of economic principles; rather, it is implicitly a theory of democracy. And the democratic system that works best with a market-driven economy is one where there exists widespread public cynicism and depoliticization, and where the mainstream political parties barely debate the fundamental issues."

“Or, as the Financial Times has put it, the best political system is one in which the capitalist control of society is ‘depoliticised,’” McChesney further asserted. 

Media oligarchs have wildly succeeded in expanding their dominance and power in a manner that threatens the stability of the press and media system. Just look at what private equity has done to destroy local journalism in communities throughout the country.

Already in 2025, media oligarchs Larry Ellison and David Ellison took control of Paramount Global when their company Skydance merged with Paramount. There should be some call from within the FCC against the Ellison family's attempt to own even more of the media system, but the opposite is happening. (The Associated Press reported that "an investment firm run by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner" is pushing for the deal.)

The history and analysis laid out by the Roosevelt Institute is a worthwhile plea for a radical shift that enables “a truly democratic information ecosystem”—one where corporate capture of media is as alarming as the potential for state control to erode liberties.

Administrators at the University of Alabama shut down two student-led publications and claimed that a memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi required them to censor journalism. 

On July 29, Bondi issued “non-binding suggestions” for “federal funding recipients to comply with antidiscrimination law.” The intent was to discourage diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, and Bondi specifically stated that “unlawful proxies” could jeopardize funding. 

Bondi also insisted that universities may not direct funds and other resources to organizations “primarily because of their racial or ethnic composition rather than other legitimate factors.”  

The magazines, Alice Magazine and Nineteen Fifty-Six, were suspended on December 1. Alice Magazine is a fashion and wellness magazine that primarily focuses on women. Nineteen Fifty-Six is a magazine largely focused on “Black culture, Black excellence and Black student experiences at the University of Alabama.”

As the university’s student newspaper The Crimson White reported, “Steven Hood, vice president of student life, told the staff of each magazine on Monday night that because the magazines target primarily specific groups, they are ‘unlawful proxies.’” 

Alex House, a university spokesperson, claimed Bondi’s memo required the university to “ensure all members of our community feel welcome to participate in programs that receive University funding from the Office of Student Media.” (Both magazines received university funds.)

The same spokesperson maintained that the university “will never restrict [their] students’ freedom of expression,” and the they were simply responding to the “compliance landscape.” However, no one enrolled or working at the university complained about the magazines. No one sued the university to force “compliance.”

It is difficult to understand why the university took action against students several months after the memo was issued by Bondi. 

Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel for the Student Press Law Center, stated, “The Supreme Court has made clear that viewpoint discrimination is off-limits, and it’s difficult to imagine a more straightforward example than a university openly acknowledging it. By shutting down only the magazines that primarily serve women and Black students — while leaving other publications alone—it looks a lot like they are targeting a particular point of view.”

The center urged the university to immediately “restore” the magazines. 

Similarly, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) sent a letter to university administrators. “No federal antidiscrimination law requires the university to silence these publications, and its choice to do so is a violation of their clearly established First Amendment rights.”

“The decisions about what to publish belong to the student editors of Alice Magazine and Nineteen Fifty-Six, and there can be no doubt that administrative action against student media in response to what they publish betrays UA’s obligation to protect free expression.”

Gabrielle Gunter, the editor-in-chief of Alice Magazine, told The Crimson White, "It is so disheartening to know that so many of us have put so much hard work into these magazines that are now being censored."

"Alice is what got me into journalism, and it breaks my heart that there will no longer be spaces like Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six where students can learn to create beautiful, diverse magazines that honor all types of identities."

Kendal Wright, editor-in-chief of Nineteen Fifty-Six, expressed her sadness. "This publication has cultivated incredibly talented and budding Black student journalists and brought our community on campus together in such a beautiful way."

The letter from FIRE clearly outlines the unlawful nature of the University of Alabama’s viewpoint-based discrimination: 

UA explicitly justified its punitive actions by pointing to the viewpoints expressed by the magazines, which the Supreme Court has called “an egregious form of content discrimination.” By suspending these magazines based on their target audiences—in other words, the magazines’ viewpoints—UA is “cast[ing] disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students[.] And, in doing so, UA “risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the Nation’s intellectual life, its college and university campuses.” Further, by leaving other student media untouched, UA has concretely demonstrated that it favors those viewpoints over those communicated by Alice Magazine and Nineteen Fifty-Six.

FIRE demanded that the university respond to their letter by December 10 and reverse this “brazen attack on the student press” by ending the suspensions against the two publications. 

“It has been an exceptionally tough year for universities and for student media—at Indiana University, Central Oklahoma University and so many others—and moments like this are precisely when educational institutions should be standing up for free speech and a free press,” Hiestand further emphasized. 

Back in October, The Dissenter covered the brazen censorship at Indiana University, where administrators shut down printing of the school’s student newspaper The Indiana Daily Student. (Three weeks later, administrators responded to alumni pulling funding and reinstated the print edition.) 

The same month the University of Central Oklahoma also halted printing of the school’s newspaper The Vista. It had been published for 122 years, yet the university interfered with the editorial independence of the newspaper and retaliated against students’ coverage of news on campus. Ultimately, students launched a new publication The Independent View.

Columbia University student journalists were threatened with disciplinary action, including suspension, for reporting on student demonstrations in support of Palestinians and against Israel’s genocidal campaign against Gaza.  

Plus, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have targeted noncitizen student journalists for deportation.

The student newspaper at Stanford University said this has resulted in a “dramatic decrease in the number of international students willing to speak” to reporters and a loss of international staff, who no longer wished to write articles about protests or political events on campus. (The Stanford Daily sued Rubio and Noem.)  

The right of students to report is under assault, and yet as Hiestand said, “[T]oo many administrators are using the moment to silence student speech they don’t like.”

Filipino American journalist Ya'akub Vijandre was allegedly targeted by the FBI in retaliation for his refusal to become an informant. The FBI reviewed Vijandre’s immigration record and social media posts, and then recommended that immigration services terminate his DACA status, according to Vijandre’s attorneys. 

Vijandre is currently detained at a for-profit ICE detention center in Folkston, Georgia, operated by GEO Group. He was arrested “at gunpoint” outside his home in Arlington, Texas, on October 7, 2025. 

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) pointed to his reporting on pro-Palestinian protests and various cases in the “global war on terrorism” to justify their actions, and an immigration judge accepted that Vijandre, a practicing Muslim, could be detained for engaging in First Amendment-protected speech. 

The Freedom of the Press Foundation hosted a panel discussion on November 18 that brought further attention to ICE’s targeting of pro-Palestinian journalists. It featured British journalist Sami Hamdi and his wife Soumaya, who recounted his ICE detention. It also featured Vijandre’s colleague Sam Judy, a freelance journalist, and attorneys who represent Vijandre.

Last week, The Dissenter covered Sami Hamdi’s remarks during the discussion. It was one of the first times that Hamdi told the story of what happened to him, and in fact, he had just been released after 18 days in ICE detention and allowed to return to London. 

Vijandre’s case is less high-profile and has received far less media attention. Yet it is arguably more significant than Hamdi’s case because Vijandre has lived in the U.S. since 2001 when he was 14 years old.

Beginning in 2013, the U.S. government granted Vijandre protection from removal under a policy aimed at protecting children from removal known as DACA. This status was extended for two years on May 3, 2024.

A habeas complaint submitted to challenge Vijandre’s detention in a federal court alleges that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security agents attempted to “recruit him as a confidential informant” around November 30, 2023.

“During this interaction, an FBI officer told Mr. Vijandre he is ‘a poster child for the way you’re supposed to do it,’ an apparent reference to Mr. Vijandre’s immigration status. Mr. Vijandre declined the offer,” the complaint recalls. 

The FBI, not DHS, reviewed Vijandre’s immigration record and determined that he had “overstayed his non-immigrant visa” but was granted DACA status. A deportation officer recommended that his status be terminated and referred to several social media postings.

In the notice to terminate, DHS accuses Vijandre of supporting the “Holy Land Foundation 5,” Hamas, and Aafia Siddiqui. It accuses Vijandre of trying to help the Fort Dix Five raise funds. 

“Your support for organizations and individuals who are known to engage in acts of terrorism presents public safety, national security concerns, and is a significant negative discretionary factor under the totality of the circumstances analysis,” the notice added. 

Marium Uddin, the legal director for the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), said Vijandre was focused on “due process violations” and “miscarriages of justice and inhumane prison conditions in cases prosecuted in the war on terror,” including Siddiqui and the Holy Land Foundation.

On October 7, according to the MLFA, Vijandre was “arrested by ICE at his home. At least six ICE vehicles encircled Yaakub as he was leaving his home for work and with guns drawn, shouted at him to obey their commands, and arresting him.” It was “the morning after he filmed a Richardson City Council meeting discussing the unlawful ICE detention of a local Palestinian community leader.”

The local Palestinian community leader was Marwan Marouf, who the Dallas Observer described as a “North Texas man known for his involvement in the Muslim community and his leading of Boy Scout troops in Richardson.” He was detained for 60 days before agreeing to be deported to Jordan. (Marouf has a heart condition known as Brugada syndrome that could result in death unless monitored closely.) 

At a bond hearing on November 3, Uddin contended that the government and an immigration judge “weaponized Yaa’kub’s faith and speech” against him and equated his “desire for peace and justice and freedom for Palestine as support for terrorism.” 

The immigration judge “found that Ya'akub’s social media activity, which included videos of himself teaching martial arts, liking instagram posts of Qur'anic verses, and sharing footage of an event on Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s case held at a Dallas mosque, constituted proof that Ya'akub endorsed and espoused terrorism. She equated that to him being a danger to the community and a flight risk,” Uddin said. 

Uddin noted when references to “jihad” in Vijandre’s postings were “explained in its true meaning as a struggle, a spiritual and moral striving, the judge and the prosecutor dismissed and immediately equated it with violence and terrorism.” 

'Did You Go As A Journalist Or As A Regular Person?'

Further alarming was the immigration judge’s line of questions about the video that Vijandre took at the Siddiqui event. The judge asked what the purpose was of posting an interview with an individual who highlighted the confinement in which Siddiqui lives at Federal Medical Center Carswell. 

“I am a photojournalist and I was capturing events in our community, and it was to provide footage and information from the event,” Vijandre replied. 

Later, the immigration judge said, “Right, but did you go as a journalist or as a regular person?” But it’s not like a person cannot engage in the First Amendment-protected activity of journalism if they attend an event as a “regular person.” Anyone with First Amendment rights has a right to freedom of the press in addition to freedom of speech.

Christopher Godshall-Bennett, a civil rights attorney, also argued during FPF’s panel discussion that the distinction between freedom of the press and freedom of speech does not matter. “One doesn’t actually make sense without the other.”

“The freedom of press is the freedom of someone who operates as a journalist to speak,” Godshall-Bennett added.

Sam Judy, who wrote about Vijandre for the Barbed Wire, reflected on his friend and colleague. They both covered pro-Palestinian protests in 2023 after Israel’s bombardment of Gaza expanded. Judy said there is a “great sense of depth” to Vijandre’s “reporting.”

“I know that [Vijandre’s] very strong, but he’s also currently in Folkston, which is a detention center in Georgia that has already had so many accusations of neglect and abuse and horrible conditions.”

“DHS wants to kill people’s spirits. They know that through the courts that a lot of things can be accomplished,” Judy declared.

FBI's History Of Retaliation Against Muslims Who Won't Be Their Informants

Certainly, this political persecution against Vijandre is emblematic of President Donald Trump’s administration. It shares similarities with the retaliation against Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk or Mahmoud Khalil. But since at least President Barack Obama’s administration, civil liberties groups and legal defense organizations, like the MLFA, have fought against the FBI’s coercive and repressive attempts to turn Muslims into informants. 

In 2013, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against DHS, the FBI, and the Justice Department for allegedly placing American Muslims on the No-Fly List after they rejected efforts by the FBI to recruit them as informants. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in 2024 that “U.S. government officials cannot use the No Fly List to try to coerce U.S. Muslims into spying on their communities against their religious beliefs.” Yet, as CCR also noted, “[T]he court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking damages from federal agents who engaged in the illegal practice.”

A decade later, the Council on American-Islamic Relations sued several U.S. government officials, including Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. The lawsuit alleged that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers pressured American Muslims like Ihab Rashad to become informants. 

Rashad claimed that a CBP officer “told him that he could help Mr. Rashad make his issues with travel go away as long as he provided them with some information.” It was strongly believed that “the CBP officer [had attempted] to use Mr. Rashad’s placement” in the “watchlist” for the Terrorist Screening Dataset as “leverage to coerce Mr. Rashad into become a government informant.”

In fact, Foad Farahi, who the MLFA has represented, is facing deportation because he has spent the last two decades challenging the FBI's practice of coercing Muslims into becoming informants.

Muslim journalists have had to worry about suspicionless searches and seizures by CBP officers that would compromise their confidential sources for at least the past 15-20 years. They have known that any of these privacy violations could undermine their work or perhaps give officials information for further retaliation, which would likely threaten their freedom to travel.

And now, under Trump, it is far worse. American Muslims who have yet to attain U.S. citizenship apparently do not have any First Amendment rights. They are not permitted to engage in speech and journalism on U.S. foreign policy as well as the treatment of political prisoners or persons convicted of terrorism offenses.

If they do exercise their freedom of expression, there is a really good chance that they may end up in detention fighting deportation like Vijandre.

*Watch the full discussion on "ICE's targeting of pro-Palestinian journalists"

British journalist Sami Hamdi, who was recently released from ICE detention in the United States, recounted what he experienced during an online discussion organized by the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Hamdi had a valid visa and a ticket for a domestic flight to Tampa, Florida, where he was scheduled to speak at a banquet for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Yet as a result of pressure from anti-Muslim activists Laura Boomer and Amy Mek, the State Department revoked his visa, and he was held in confinement for around 18 days. 

On October 26, the Department of Homeland Security took him into custody at the San Francisco International Airport. His detention and removal was in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian human rights and against the Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza.

While searching for the gate for his departure (and after he went through airport security), according to Hamdi, an agent waiting for him said your visa was revoked two days ago and now you’re here illegally. No one had informed Hamdi that his visa was no longer valid so he demanded proof of this allegation.

The agent pulled out a State Department memo, and Hamdi noticed that the document contained no charge or reason for detaining him. It simply commanded that he be arrested or detained by officers. 

Hamdi asked if he could buy a ticket to London and leave the country, but the agent said that is not how this works. Then five agents appeared around him.

“They escorted me out of the airport, and I find a black car with tinted windows waiting for me. They said to me, sir, please get into the car, and I said to him this feels like a movie. I’ve seen this where you throw somebody into a car, etc,” Hamdi recalled. “I’m a British citizen with rights. I’m not getting into the car. I want to use my phone to call a lawyer, to call somebody who can advise on my rights and what to do in this situation.”

He was granted one minute so he called CAIR, and they said find out where you are going. The agents would not tell him.

After asking if he could also contact his family, an agent grabbed Hamdi and threw him on a car. They handcuffed his hands behind his back “really tightly.” He was thrown into the car and driven a half hour to an ICE processing center. 

Agents, as Hamdi recalled, put him in a cell. He waited two hours until they came and handed him a piece of paper that said he was guilty of what he was charged with doing and that he agreed to the “deportation order.” Of course, Hamdi refused to sign the order because he had a B-1/B-2 visa that permitted him to visit the U.S. for six months a year. It was valid until 2028.

When Hamdi would not agree to his removal, agents took Hamdi to the back of a van. “And this is wild. I mean, I expect it maybe in Tunisia, where my father’s from, but in America, this was a very surreal experience.”

In the van, Hamdi sat with cuffs on his hands and legs and a chain around his body. Nobody would tell him where agents were taking him. The trip took four to five hours, and he was unloaded from the van and put into a black car at one point.

Hamdi was brought inside an ICE detention center in McFarland, California, commonly known as the Golden State Annex. He watched an agent during check-in ask a Latino man about his country of origin. The man jokingly replied Afghanistan, which led the officer to say, “Your people want to kill my people.” The Latino man looked terrified, and immediately, he regretted the poor joke. The officer’s comment was an “insight into the mentality” of the people guarding detainees.

Hamdi recalled being brought to a hall with nearly 100 people that was “clearly overcrowded.” He was granted five minutes to make phone calls to his lawyers and family. Soon after he had a meal, too—“sweet corn with black spots on it,” and “beans that tasted like they [were past expiration].”

During detention, there was a period where Hamdi felt “agonizing pain.” He asked for medical treatment, yet hours went by without any doctor visiting him. A guard then told him the doctor had been around for the past three hours. In order to see the doctor, the guard suggested that he drop on the floor right now otherwise they would not agree to see him. 

Hamdi also recounted how he was told that ICE would be taking him to Fresno, California. The fear was that he could be flown to Texas or Florida. Again, he was cuffed tightly and transported to this facility. Fifteen people in a small cell were handed yoga mats for sleeping. The officers would not remove the cuffs. 

“I’m going blue,” Hamdi told the guards the following morning. They dismissed his complaint. 

In Fresno, he was informed that his court date on November 6 was moved to November 10. They changed case details, like where he landed (Santa Ana, California) and where he was cleared for U.S. entry (Calgary). That allowed them to delay his access to a judge. 

“By the way, would you like to sign the deportation [order] and go home right now?” asked the officer. 

Hamdi said he was held in detention in Fresno until 10 p.m., when agents transported him back to the Golden State Annex. Upon return, the warden recognized him as the “famous guy.” He felt that his treatment slightly improved due to media attention. 

The panel discussion additionally focused on the case of Ya’akub Ira Vijandre, a community journalist and DACA recipient who was detained outside of his home in Texas. Similarly, he was  targeted by authorities for his social media postings that covered pro-Palestinian protests. (I’ll focus on Vijandre’s case in a later post.)

Soumaya Hamdi, the wife of Sami Hamdi, spoke about the scary allegations that were made against her husband. The “silver lining” was that there was an “incredible outpouring of support globally from the community”—Muslims and non-Muslims, journalists and non-journalists, social media influencers, the legal team, etc. 

She experienced firsthand the exploitative nature of her husband’s detention, too. Not only did they attempt to silence him, but while in custody, it felt like they were trying to make as much money off this injustice as possible through “ICE tablets” and then the food and drink vending machines that only took quarters. 

Sami Hamdi could purchase food and drinks when he saw visitors, however, he was not allowed to take anything bought in the facility back to where he was confined. 

While discussing the free speech implications, CAIR attorney Hassan Ahmed said the U.S. government was “taking a shredder to the First Amendment.” 

Civil rights attorney Chris Godshall-Bennett contended, “When the government detains you because of your speech in order to prevent you from speaking again, that strikes me as the most extreme form of prior restraint that could possibly exist.”

Most ICE detainees do not have the ability to fight this unjust treatment like Hamdi did. But Hamdi had the courage to very publicly challenge ICE in order to further expose their actions. 

Marium Uddin, the legal director of the Muslim Legal Fund of America, said Hamdi’s “whole risk calculus was if I stay in custody, how much more maximized opportunity is there to do good?” 

Hamdi spoke with pride. “I hurt the oppressor. I made it so that the oppressor had to detain me for two weeks.”

“My voice was powerful enough that they couldn’t leave me alone. They had to put me in detention for two weeks. And even better than that, everybody came out, which meant they couldn’t keep me in [detention].”

“There is nothing more fun in this job than making the oppressor lose sleep,” Hamdi added. “There is nothing more fun in this job than knowing that you have the ability to make a difference.”

In a show of solidarity with those with less power to mobilize opposition, Hamdi shared stories about detainees or asylum seekers that he met in custody. They’ve either had their court dates pushed back, or they have not been released because the government cannot find a third country to take them. 

Hamdi insisted that more focus be put on the conditions of detention than just the people who are detained.

“It’s such a tragic injustice what ICE are doing to these people,” Hamdi concluded. “And I think the reality is that the ICE officers know it. All it takes is for a concerted effort to put a spotlight on that, and my dream is that it gets dismantled for the atrocities that they’re committing in these facilities.” 

Watch and listen to the Freedom of the Press Foundation's panel discussion on ICE's targeting of pro-Palestinian journalists here.

Over the past several months, I have been fighting a suburban Chicago library that has attempted to censor a local newsletter that I launched.

In fact, back in July, the Freedom of the Press Foundation's U.S. Press Freedom Tracker logged what was happening as an incident in Illinois.

This fight has distracted me from the work that I typically do on press freedom, whistleblowers, and government secrecy. Now, I am finally able to sit down and share this story with international readers of The Dissenter. 

The United States is filled with news deserts, which are defined as communities, “either rural or urban, with limited access to the sort of credible and comprehensive news and information that feeds democracy at the grassroots level.”

One of those communities is the West Chicago suburb where I live, which is known as Elmwood Park. Its population is around 24,000. The village has a newspaper, the Elm Leaves, but it is a prime example of the impact media consolidation has had on local journalism. 

The Elm Leaves is owned by the Pioneer Press, which is owned by Nexstar Media—a media corporation that merged with the Tribune Media Group in 2019. It rarely includes reporting on Elmwood Park. Instead, the newspaper features syndicated coverage of various Chicago suburbs that is written by a handful of reporters. 

Recognizing the lack of a reliable source for news and information in Elmwood Park, I joined with several residents and launched the Elmwood Park Advocate. 

We also reserved a library meeting room to host monthly “Community Conversations,” where residents were invited to talk with us about their shared experiences in the village. Through engagement, we believed our reporting and writing would better reflect life in the neighborhood.

After two “Community Conversations” in June and July, Library Director Michael Consiglio informed the Elmwood Park Advocate that seven or eight people objected to the “process and rationale behind hosting your meetings at the Library.” He then insisted after their opposition that we needed to pay $100 each time that we reserved a meeting room. 

The library director maintained that the library’s meeting room policy said only nonprofits with proof of 501c designation from the IRS are eligible to use the room free of charge. However, I obtained records through the Illinois Freedom of Information of Act that show the library never charged “any meeting room use fees since the adoption of the Library’s current Meeting Room Policy and reservation system in 2023.”

Library Director Seeks Power To Police Journalism And Speech

A public body is not allowed to infringe upon or bar a group from broadly exercising their First Amendment rights just because a very small group of hecklers do not like the idea of that group exercising their rights. This is the rule against the “heckler’s veto.” 

We met with the library director at the end of July. It was conveyed to us that the opposition to using the meeting room stemmed from our perceived association with individuals who had run for library board trustee positions and lost in April. However, the meeting was cordial, and the library director even said no resident should have to pay for a meeting room because we all pay property taxes. So, we were led to believe we could still use the meeting room in August and September for free.

Stunningly, on September 8, the library director unveiled a new meeting room policy. It was presented at a library board policy committee meeting that would have granted him the authority to police speech—not just inside but also outside of the library. 

For example:   

This is blatantly unconstitutional. As the American Library Association has outlined, “To restrict speech, a library must show that (1) it has a compelling state interest and (2) the speech restrictions are narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” 

The library had no public safety or health reason for trying to restrict speech nor was this provision narrowly drawn. It would have applied to “digital” communications, like articles published by my newsletter.

Attorneys for the library advised the library director to make substantial revisions, and I obtained a draft of the policy before it was revised. The report, which I published on September 30, led a number of residents to write to the library director.

“Didn't we just see this free speech fight play out 2 weeks ago with Jimmy Kimmel? Disney, ABC and their affiliates reversed course quickly once they realized that Americans truly believe and honor free speech as a constitutional right,” one resident wrote to the library director.

The same resident declared, “Free speech is the bedrock of our democracy and politicians, village officials and other community leaders need to uphold it at every chance. That includes allowing community groups the right to use legitimate public facilities, like library rooms, free of charge and without recourse to what they may or may not say during their meetings.”

Faced with a bit of a backlash, the library director disingenuously acted like he had never pursued a new meeting room policy. He told multiple residents, “There is no plan to change the current approved policy.” (Which was false. I obtained a copy of the proposed policy through FOIA and reported on it.) 

Another Attempt To Force Us To Pay A Fee (With A Bizarre Twist)

We were allowed to hold our fourth “Community Conversation” on September 20. It had the highest attendance yet, and we discussed immigration. 

But on September 29, Library Director Michael Consiglio informed the Elmwood Park Advocate that the library’s attorneys had reviewed the meeting room policy. Only Elmwood Park government agencies and Elmwood Park-based organizations that are recognized by the IRS as 501c nonprofits are “exempt from paying fees.” 

“This rule applies to all community clubs, cultural organizations, informal advocacy groups, and booster clubs that are not formally registered as nonprofits,” Consiglio added. We would have to pay $100 if we wished to use the meeting room for another “Community Conversation.”

Bizarrely, on October 2, the library director emailed the newsletter and said, “[I]n the interest of maintaining open communication and making sure that your planned meeting can proceed without disruption, I will personally cover the $100 meeting room fee until the Library Board convenes to review the policy and consider any necessary revisions.”

We neither accepted nor rejected the offer. In my opinion, there was an intimidating coerciveness behind this offer: accept my personal generosity or else your newsletter will not be able to use the library’s main meeting room.

Also, it seemed like if we did not accept the offer the library director and library board president could paint us as difficult and unreasonable. But no one involved or associated with the newsletter was responsible for the combination of developments, which led to the library director suddenly insisting that the library must charge meeting room fees. 

The library director “paid” the fee, and we held a fifth “Community Conversation” on October 11. At this gathering, we specifically addressed the fear and anxiety that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations had generated among residents. 

A Plea To Respect Our First Amendment Rights

Everything finally came to a head on October 26. After we reserved a room for November 15, Library Director Michael Consiglio denied the newsletter’s request for a room unless we paid $100. The newsletter appealed the decision. 

On November 10, I stood before the library board policy committee and presented our appeal. 

I urged trustees to interpret “the meeting room policy in a manner that supports the library’s mission and the principle for meeting room use in the Library Bill of Rights.”

The ALA’s Library Bill of Rights, which is part of the policy, says, “Libraries shall make meeting rooms available to groups regardless of the beliefs and affiliations of the group requesting their use or their members.”

Jack Bentley, a community lawyer, submitted a statement on our behalf. “The First Amendment to the Constitution does not only protect the freedom to view, hear, and read library materials. It also protects the freedom for residents to assemble in a meeting room, regardless of their beliefs, affiliations, or speech. That includes the freedom to publish articles about the library without fear of retaliation.”

“To charge the newsletter or any group of residents $100 for meeting room reservations with no apparent budgetary or policy concern backing up that fee is patently violative of your residents’ right to free expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” Bentley further stated.

Our case was compounded by the fact that Library Board President Chris Pesko proposed changing the language of the policy so it was much more clear that the library would charge any group or organization without 501c nonprofit status. Even if our appeal was granted, library board trustees could have immediately nullified the decision.

However, something unexpected happened while the library board was discussing the appeal. Library Board Trustee Peter Fosco urged the trustees to spend some more time considering the fees and comparing the fee structure in the policy to other area libraries. He motioned for a “moratorium” on meeting room fees, and the committee temporarily suspended the fee. (An hour later, the full library board voted to suspend the fee, too.)

By suspending the fee, it allowed the library board to avoid a decision that would have added to brewing resentment over how the library has treated our newsletter. It also meant that our appeal was paused, and that we could host our final “Community Conversation of the year on November 15.

I have no idea where this battle goes next, but it has renewed my sense of purpose as a journalist. Each day I spend several hours drafting articles, collaborating with volunteer staff, submitting FOIA requests, challenging FOIA denials, defending our newsletter, etc.

When the Elmwood Park Advocate launched in late May, it had less than 10 views per day. In September and October, we’ve hit 1,500 views and 2,000 views in a day. Our traffic is up over 26,000 percent in the past 180 days, and the number of subscribers that we have has grown by over 3,000 percent during the same time.

For well over a decade, I have written about press freedom, free speech, censorship, secrecy, and even government accountability. I was part of a groundswell of opposition that helped free WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

One might think I would stay focused on the national and international issues that were integral to their cases (and I am still committed to these issues). But this has rekindled my passion for journalism. I see traffic spikes on articles and engage with readers in a way that simply does not happen with The Dissenter anymore.

Leading a local newsletter feels incredibly important and impactful, like we're on the frontlines of a fight for access to news and information that every community should be waging right now.

Several journalist unions and press freedom and free speech groups condemned President Donald Trump’s administration for detaining British journalist and political commentator Sami Hamdi.

“The arrest of Sami Hamdi constitutes a serious violation of his fundamental rights and poses a grave threat to freedom of expression and democratic principles,” declared International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) General Secretary Anthony Bellanger. 

Bellanger added, “We are deeply concerned by the apparent misuse of anti-terror legislation, which risks setting a dangerous precedent for journalists and citizens engaging in public debate and exercising their right to free speech.”

Hamdi regularly speaks out against the Israeli government and voices his support for Palestinian human rights. According to a statement from family and attorneys of Hamdi, he was visiting Muslim communities in the United States. He was “abducted by ICE” at the San Francisco International Airport in the morning on October 26. 

Hamdi had a ticket for a domestic flight to Tampa, Florida, where he was scheduled to speak at a banquet for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Both Anti-Muslim political activists Laura Loomer and Amy Mek claimed credit for convincing the Department of Homeland Security to detain him.  

A day after Hamdi was detained, attorneys from the California chapter of CAIR (CAIR-CA) met with him in ICE detention at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California. They filed a habeas petition that requests that a federal court take action to protect Hamdi’s rights. CAIR attorneys also demanded an emergency temporary restraining order because they fear that the government will transfer him “away from his legal team.” 

Hamdi plans to fight deportation rather than simply board a plane and go home. He told CAIR-CA that he was grateful for everyone “who has spoken up in solidarity with him and encourages all Americans to continue calling for the United States to support human rights and “put America First, not the Israeli government first.”

However, his attorneys are concerned that Hamdi may be moved to Fresno so that it will be harder for him to challenge his detention and removal.

National Union of Journalists (NUJ) assistant general secretary Séamus Dooley said: "We share the concerns expressed by the IFJ at the arrest and detention of Sami Hamdi. The circumstances surrounding his detention give cause for serious concern. There is no evidence that, as a journalist, he is guilty of a terrorist offense, and he should be released.” (NUJ is based in the United Kingdom.)

Hamdi entered the country with a valid visa for visitors traveling for business or tourism. It authorizes him to stay in the U.S. until April 18, 2026. His detention occurred after he spoke at CAIR’s annual gala in San Francisco.

“Detaining Hamdi violates his Fifth Amendment right to substantive due process,” according to the habeas complaint filed by CAIR-CA attorneys, immigration attorney Hassan Ahmad, and the Muslim Legal Fund of America. “He has been a frequent and lawful visitor to the United States for years, regularly traveling here for professional, journalistic, and academic engagements."

“As an internationally recognized political analyst and commentator, he has appeared on major U.S. networks such as CNN, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera English; spoken at conferences hosted by leading American universities and think tanks; and maintained longstanding professional and personal relationships with U.S. journalists, policymakers, and civic organizations.”

The complaint adds, “He has repeatedly entered the country on valid visas, maintained a spotless immigration record, and contributed to the public discourse that the First Amendment was designed to protect.”

Hamdi's attorneys argue, “The detention and removal of Hamdi are part of the same unconstitutional policy condemned in American Association of University Professors v. Rubio.”

“That court found by clear and convincing evidence that senior officials of the aforethought concerted their actions peacefully to assemble of non-citizen plaintiffs,” the attorneys further assert. “The same apparatus—Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), and the Secretary of State (DOS) has now been turned on Hamdi. His arrest follows his public speech critical of the United States and Israeli policy in Gaza and thus falls squarely within the pattern of viewpoint-based retaliation described in AAUP v. Rubio.”

After Hamdi was detained, the State Department said, "The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who support terrorism and actively undermine the safety of Americans. We continue to revoke the visas of persons engaged in such activity."

“Revoking a journalist’s visa for views that challenge the administration’s preferred narrative sends a chilling message that foreign nationals who speak critically risk expulsion through political retaliation,” said Tim Richardson, the director of PEN America’s Journalism and Disinformation Program. “Federal courts have already rebuked the administration for using deportations and visa revocations to silence dissent, making clear that targeting noncitizens for political speech is unconstitutional. Yet the government continues to wield immigration enforcement as a tool to censor, intimidate, and silence.”

The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) called the detention of Hamdi a “blatant assault on free speech,” and added, “These are the tactics of the Thought Police.”

“FPF has filed FOIA requests with ICE and the State Department over Sami Hamdi's detainment, apparently for no other reason than saying something the administration doesn't like.” 

Indiana University Media School administrators shut down printing of the school’s student newspaper after firing the newspaper’s chief adviser. The brazen act of censorship sparked widespread media coverage and a show of solidarity from student journalists at Purdue University, which is the school’s rival.

A little more than a year ago, the Media School cut print production of the school’s weekly student newspaper to seven “special editions” per semester. The decision was undertaken without consulting the publication and went into effect for the spring 2025 semester

Media school administrators demanded on October 7 that Indiana Daily Student editors refrain from including any news or "traditional front page news coverage” in their special printed editions. Jim Rodenbush, director of student media and chief adviser for the student newspaper, refused to help administrators censor the publication.

On October 13, Indiana Daily Student editors Mia Hilkowitz and Andrew Miller pleaded with Dean David Tolchinsky and leadership of the media school. They asked that administrators uphold students’ First Amendment rights and avoid taking this action. The editors pointed out that the censorship would negatively impact the newspaper’s relationship with advertisers, which have helped fund the publication. 

Rodenbush was fired the following day. “I was terminated because I was unwilling to censor student media. 100%,” Rodenbush declared. “I have no reason to believe otherwise.”

After the student newspaper’s chief adviser was fired on October 14, media school administrators ended printing for the publication once and for all. 

Hilkowitz and Miller responded, “Editorial decisions, including the contents of our print product, firmly lie in the hands of the students. This is not about print. This is about a breach of editorial independence. If IU decides certain types of content are ‘bad for business,’ what stops them from prohibiting stories that hold them to account on our other platforms?”

IU's Student Government said, "During a period when our free speech rankings have struggled, scoring third-lowest in the nation amongst public universities, the censorship of the IDS is a rightfully worrisome step for the future of this university and students’ voices."

“This disregards strong First Amendment protections and a long-standing tradition of student editorial independence at Indiana University,” stated Jonathan Gaston-Falk, staff attorney at the Student Press Law Center.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) plainly characterized the school’s attack on freedom of the press. “Firing Rodenbush and banning the paper are textbook First Amendment violations that IU claims are part of a digital-first media strategy. But that’s a smokescreen.”

“Cutting the print edition and removing a longtime adviser after critical coverage isn’t a strategy. It’s retaliation. And it’s illegal,” according to FIRE. 

WFYI, a local PBS affiliate in Indianapolis, described how student journalists at Purdue printed a “free press edition” of their newspaper, The Exponent. They drove 3,000 copies to Bloomington as part of “Operation Clandestine Delivery” and put copies in student newspaper boxes on IU’s campus.  

“The recent events down in Bloomington are only a drop in the bucket of a widespread push by institutions to pressure and silence journalists,” Avery Goldthorpe, the Exponent’s managing and city editor, wrote for the “free press edition.” 

Goldthorpe connected the censorship at IU to the struggle that the Columbia Daily Spectator has endured at Columbia University in New York. Columbia student journalists were blocked from covering a pro-Palestinian protest on campus, despite having press badges. (Student journalists have also been threatened with disciplinary action, including suspension, for reporting on student demonstrations.)  

The Retrograde, an alternative student newspaper at the University of Texas-Dallas (UTD), showed support for IU student journalists. “Within 48 hours, the IDS went from one of the most decorated student newspapers in the country to a war-torn battleground left with no print and no adviser. 

“Just as UTD did when justifying removing The Mercury’s Editor-in-Chief and later firing all its staff, IU will try to justify this any way it can, citing budget constraints or their media plan or saying it’s a move to prepare students for ‘digital-first careers,’” Retrograde editors argued. 

Indeed, around a year ago, The Retrograde launched after administrators fired editors of UTD’s longtime student newspaper called The Mercury. The censorship was seen as retaliation against student journalists who questioned administrators' crackdown on peaceful pro-Palestinian protests on campus. (For some incredible background, read Unicorn Riot’s “RIP Mercury, Hello Retrograde! How Administrators Failed to Stop the Presses at The University of Texas-Dallas.”)

Nationwide censorship against student journalists combined with the targeting of noncitizen student journalists by President Donald Trump’s administration has produced an exceptionally difficult environment.

Purdue student journalists had their own battle when administrators notified them last May that the school would no longer help distribute newspapers. Yet as Olivia Mapes, the Exponent’s editor-in-chief, insisted, “In today’s political environment, freedom of the press is critical to hold entities accountable."

"While universities remove trusted newsroom leaders and inhibit the distribution of information, student media must not lay down quietly.”

Thanks for supporting The Dissenter. This article was written exclusively for paid subscribers.

In 2010, when WikiLeaks published files on United States military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell expressed panic. He told CNN host Howard Kurtz that the organization represented a “frightening new development” since they could not “negotiate” with WikiLeaks “like American news outlets.”

WikiLeaks, according to Morell, was “beholden to nobody” and had a “‘damn the consequences’ approach to publishing.” 

Fifteen years later, the Pentagon is as fearful as ever of journalists who may not submit to their political or military agenda. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell insists they are forcing reporters to agree to a censorship policy because the must protect “troops and the national security of this country.” 

Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth and other officials promise to revoke access for any credentialed reporters who do not sign the pledge. So far, only one media outlet that openly produces propaganda for President Donald Trump has signed.

Reporters assigned to the Pentagon should proudly hand in their badges. No self-respecting journalist should ever comply with guidelines that would turn them into state propagandists. They also should not yield to arbitrary rules that cast them as a “national security threat.”

Of course, this is how the Pentagon views journalists. When I reported on Chelsea Manning’s court-martial at Fort Meade, press arrived early in the morning to have their vehicles inspected by bomb-sniffing dogs. We were then escorted on base and closely monitored as we moved between a media center and a court building during the day. 

Most media organizations refused to sign a censorship policy at the Pentagon that imposes greater control over credentialed reporters and the information that they publish. 

The policy, championed by Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, was first proposed in mid-September. It resulted in an immediate backlash because the policy required reporters to pledge not to share any military information, including unclassified information, unless that information is officially approved for release. 

On October 6, the Pentagon revised the policy [PDF]. It changed to “military members” must seek approval from an “appropriate authorizing official” before releasing information to the press. However, the department added, “Any solicitation of [military] personnel to commit criminal acts would not be considered protected activity under the 1st Amendment.”

The Atlantic, Associated Press, Breaking Defense, CNN, Defense One, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Hill, The New York Times, NPR, Newsmax, Politico, Reuters, Task & Purpose, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Post, and The Washington Times all announced that they would not agree to the policy. (Media outlets had until 5 p.m. on October 14 or else they would likely lose access to the Pentagon.) 

By the end of the week, The Washington Post reported that “a contingent of smaller outlets, foreign media, freelancers and MAGA-friendly press did sign on.”

“The list of signatories included four reporters from right-wing outlets: one from the website the Federalist, one from the Epoch Times newspaper, and two from the cable network One America News,” according to the Post.

“NPR will never be party to limitations on the independence of the press and the objective, fact-based reporting of our journalists,” NPR Editor-In-Chief Thomas Evans declared. “We will not sign the Administration's restrictive policy that asks reporters to undermine their commitment of providing trustworthy, independent journalism to the American public.”

“The new policy threatens that commitment by giving the Administration final say over what can and cannot be reported about our military and its actions. The role of a free press is to remain objective and share information not subject to influence. If reporting about the American military is pre-approved by the military, the public is not getting real reporting—it is getting only what officials want the public to see,” Evans added. 

Various media organizations also have objected to how the policy bars journalists from accessing numerous areas inside the Pentagon if they do not have an escort. These are not areas that reporters have historically been barred from entering. 

The Pentagon Press Association (PPA) stated on October 13, “This Wednesday, most Pentagon Press Association members seem likely to hand over their badges rather than acknowledge a policy that gags Pentagon employees and threatens retaliation against reporters who seek out information that has not been pre-approved for release.”

“Our members did nothing to create the disturbing situation. It arises from an entirely one-sided move by Pentagon officials apparently intent upon cutting the American public off from information they do not control and pre-approve—information concerning such issues as sexual assault in the military, conflicts of interest, corruption, or waste and fraud in billion-dollar programs.” 

Through their press release, the PPA sought to clarify that despite what Pentagon officials have said reporters do not go “into secret spaces” and obtain “classified documents.” Reporters have always been limited to “unclassified, open spaces.”

“The White House and State Department do not require reporters to sign any similar acknowledgment to obtain access to their buildings,” PPA emphasized. 

Plus, PPA said the Pentagon demands reporters express an "understanding" that "harm inevitably flows from the disclosure of unauthorized information, classified or not—something everyone involved knows to be untrue."

Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, told Poynter that the Pentagon’s language blurs “the line between legitimate national security protections and unconstitutional prior restraint.” It treats “ordinary newsgathering—asking questions, cultivating sources, seeking tips—as if it were solicitation of unlawful disclosures. That framing isn’t supported by the law.”

This was a central part of the Espionage Act prosecution against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and through this policy, the alarming criminalization of newsgathering in that case is being streamlined by Hegseth and the Pentagon. 

Only one media organization agreed to the policy, One America News (OAN). President Donald Trump is a fan of the right-wing outlet. OAN previously offered to provide their news reports to Voice of America for free, and the Trump administration accepted the offer. The network is full of people eager to act as state propagandists for the Trump administration.

As for the rest of the media, their editors and producers recognize what it would look like if they promised to be loyal and avoid publishing any unapproved information. 

NPR’s Tom Bowman wrote a column about his decision to hand in his media badge. “Did I as a reporter solicit information? Of course. It's called journalism: finding out what's really going on behind the scenes and not accepting wholesale what any government or administration says.”

Bowman shared, “Now, we're barely getting any information at all from the Pentagon. In the 10 months that the Trump administration has been in office, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has given just two briefings.”

“And there have been virtually no background briefings, which were common in the past whenever there has been military action anywhere in the world, as there has been with the recent bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities and of boats off the coast of Venezuela alleged to be carrying illicit drugs."

Previous administration would hold press briefings about twice a week, but this administration has open contempt for transparency and accountability. This contempt extends to imposing a media policy that blatantly undermines the constitutional right to freedom of the press. 

Yet in many ways, Hegseth and other officials are simply building on the rampant classification of information, limited and unpredictable access to officials, widespread workplace surveillance of employees or contractors, and the chilling of potential news media sources that has become commonplace at the Pentagon over the past two decades.