hr 9495

The bipartisan Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act, which passed the House in January, would bar the federal government from forcing journalists and telecommunications companies to disclose certain information, to protect sources and reporting materials, with exceptions for threats of terrorism or imminent violence.

Several states have various shield laws, but advocates have long pushed for one at the federal level. Given Trump's long-standing hostility toward the press—which he has called "the enemy of the people"—there were fresh demands for Senate action after he won the presidential election earlier this month.

Those same voices have reacted with alarm to Trump's Truth Social post calling on the GOP to block the bill.

Noting that "Democratic administrations abused their powers to spy on journalists many times, too," Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, told CNN that the president-elect should reconsider his position because "the PRESS Act protects conservative and independent journalists just as much as it does anyone in the mainstream press."

"The bipartisan PRESS Act will stop government overreach and protect the First Amendment once and for all," he said. Timm also highlighted that "much of the reporting Trump likes, from the Twitter files to stories poking holes in the Russiagate conspiracy, came from confidential sources," and the bill is backed by some of the incoming president's congressional allies.

For example, Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) "are champions of the PRESS Act because it would protect all journalists, including many who reach primarily conservative audiences," he said. "That's good for the public, whether they voted Republican or Democrat."

Earlier this week, before Trump weighed in, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the bill's lead sponsor in the upper chamber, publicly said that "I'll be pushing as hard as I can these next two months to pass my PRESS Act to protect journalists from government spying and surveillance. Anyone who cares about protecting journalism and a free press should contact their senators and ask them to support the bill."

Although the bill has some Republican backers in the Senate, there are also opponents, particularly on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it has stalled. As The New York Times detailed Wednesday:

The committee, under the leadership of its chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, has primarily been focused on approving as many of President [Joe] Biden's judicial nominees as it can before the session ends and Republicans take over leadership of the chamber next year.

The bill has also run into skepticism from several Republican senators, which makes it harder to bring it up for quick passage or to attach it to some other bill, like the Annual Defense Authorization Act.

According to congressional staff, the bill's primary adversary on the Judiciary Committee has been Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a hawkish Republican who gained public attention as an Army officer in 2006 while serving in Iraq by attacking The New York Times for its publication of an investigative article about a counterterrorism finances program. Another Republican committee member, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, is also said to have expressed some reservations.

"The fact that Trump is railing against the PRESS Act tells us everything we need to know: He wants no shackles when it comes to attacking, intimidating, silencing the press," said David Kaye, a University of California, Irvine law professor.

"No criticism. No stories of corruption. Memory hole his crimes. Nothing," stressed Kaye, a former United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. "DEFEND DEMOCRACY AND PASS THE PRESS ACT NOW!"

As reporters and media defenders urge passage of the PRESS Act, many are also sounding the alarm over H.R. 9495, a bill that passed the House on Thursday and would empower the Treasury Department to strip nonprofit status from various organizations—including news outlets like Common Dreams—by accusing them of supporting terrorism without due process.

"Today is a dark day for free speech rights and freedom altogether. Make no mistake: The real intention of H.R. 9495 is to give the executive branch extra powers to suppress dissent," Free Press Action policy counsel Jenna Ruddock said in a statement after the House vote on the "nonprofit killer" bill.

"If it's signed into law, the legislation would have a widespread chilling effect not only on nonprofit groups but on the millions of people across the United States who rely on these organizations to help them engage in the political process and access crucial services," she warned. "The bill has dangerously broad statutory language that would allow the incoming Trump administration to interpret its authority in any number of harmful ways."