SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
press freedom
Press Freedom Groups Warn 'No Newsroom in America Is Safe' After House GOP Subpoenas Left-Wing Outlet
"BreakThrough News is not the first, nor will it be the last, to come under official attack," said one press freedom advocate.
Jul 23, 2026
Press freedom groups are issuing dire warnings on Thursday that House Republicans' efforts to subpoena the nonprofit left-wing news organization BreakThrough News represent a dangerous new step in a McCarthyite war on political dissent.
On Wednesday, Fox News reported that BreakThrough, a New York-based outlet, was one of three nonprofits that had been issued subpoenas by the GOP-controlled House Ways and Means Committee as part of an investigation into $39 million worth of donations from tech mogul Neville Roy Singham, a self-described socialist who has used his wealth to fund left-wing nonprofits.
In letters sent Tuesday, the committee, led by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), said that BreakThrough, as well as two other organizations—the People’s Forum Inc., a New York-based activist hub, and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research—had not turned over any documents that had been requested as part of an investigation into whether rules around tax exempt status for nonprofits should be tightened to protect against foreign influence.
The committee has accused Singham, an American who now lives in Shanghai, of exploiting the tax code and using shell companies and donor-advised funds to hide foreign money that has been used to promote the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. It does not, however, make any specific accusation of legal wrongdoing.
The subpoena requires BreakThrough News to turn over records about its finances, foreign donors and grant recipients, fiscal-sponsorship arrangements, and communications with Singham and any foreign entities.
In a statement on Wednesday, BreakThrough News said it was "under attack."
"For years, Republican lawmakers have painted a target on our backs, falsely claiming that our political views and reporting are part of some foreign plot," the outlet said. "Now, the MAGA-dominated House Ways and Means Committee has issued us a subpoena—demanding internal communications, financial records and more. Make no mistake, this is a flagrant abuse of power, and a direct attack on our work as journalists and on the First Amendment generally."
BreakThrough said it does not receive any funding from foreign governments or institutions and that it already complies with all the tax and public reporting requirements that nonprofits have to follow.
"We are not charged with any crime, because our only 'crime' has been to tell the truth–by covering the activities of the Palestine solidarity movement, unmasking the truth of ICE’s terror in our streets, and exposing Washington’s crimes around the world, from Cuba to the Congo," the outlet said. "That’s the journalism they want to shut down. Their goal is to saddle us with legal proceedings and hostile media to drain our resources and stop this important work."
While the committee stated that they are investigating BreakThrough over its financing rather than its politics, letters sent to the organization have treated the content of its reporting as circumstantial evidence of malign foreign influence, referring to it as "anti-American" and claiming that its negative coverage of Israel was "sowing division within the United States."
Chip Gibbons, the policy director of the free speech advocacy group Defending Rights & Dissent, told Common Dreams that the subpoena of BreakThrough was a "deeply chilling assault on the First Amendment."
"Such tactics are, quite literally, a throwback to the House Un-American Activities Committee, which today is mostly viewed as a disgrace," Gibbons said. "I say mostly, because just three days ago [Secretary Marco] Rubio's State Department released a report preposterously attacking the US left, including some of these groups, as Cuban fronts that cited old HUAC reports."
He further emphasized in a press release that there was "no plausible need" for a news organization to provide documents as part of a broad congressional inquiry.
"The only thing these groups are accused of is essentially receiving donations from a US citizen who has been the subject of an intensive campaign of demonization," Gibbons said. "It is lawful for Americans to donate to activist causes and media projects while holding views disfavored by Congress. This is clearly not a valid legislative inquiry at all, but an attempt to intimidate and chill dissenting opinions."
Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed that “Congress shouldn’t be using a tax investigation as a pretext to dig through a newsroom’s internal communications or financial records.
"Freedom of the press," he said, "applies to all journalists, regardless of whether politicians like their editorial slant or their politics."
In what it has portrayed as a fight against "left-wing terrorism," the Trump administration has increasingly blurred the lines between violent activity and protected political speech that they claim "incites" violence.
National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, signed by Trump in September, designates large swathes of left-wing viewpoints on race, gender, immigration, and other topics as "indicators" of domestic terrorism that have been used to link entire groups of people to violent acts they themselves did not commit.
Rubio said last week that the administration would soon be designating more left-wing organizations as terrorist groups, while senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller said that the full force of the state would be used to "disrupt, identify, defund, de-bank, arrest, prosecute" those deemed to "foment" political violence, not just those who actually commit it.
He has previously pledged to use the law to "dismantle" organizations that use heated rhetoric to refer to their right-wing opponents, including calling them "fascist" or "authoritarian."
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, described the subpoena of BreakThrough as an extension of a "retaliatory ethos" Trump has taken towards critical journalists "with the goal of shutting down criticism and dissent."
She told Common Dreams, "BreakThrough News is not the first, nor will it be the last, to come under official attack for bringing people alternative and useful news coverage about ICE abuses, foreign policy, Palestinian rights, and other topics."
"Allowing a congressional committee to harass an independent newsroom with a broad subpoena sets an awful precedent," Stern said. "If lawmakers can abuse tax oversight to single out outlets whose reporting offends them today, no newsroom in America is safe from government intimidation tomorrow.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
After NYT Subpoenas, Senate Dems Urged to Oppose Clayton for Trump Spy Chief
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake."
Jul 14, 2026
A coalition of progressive groups is pressuring Senate Democrats to oppose President Donald Trump's nomination of Jay Clayton III to lead America's spy agencies over his role in helping the administration use the legal system to attack journalists.
Over the weekend, The New York Times reported that Clayton, who currently serves as the US attorney for Manhattan, had issued subpoenas to four of its journalists after they'd reported on security concerns related to the luxury jet gifted by the Qatari government, which Trump has begun to use in place of Air Force One against the wishes of the Secret Service.
The US Department of Justice said in a statement that the goal of the investigation was to prosecute leakers who spoke to the press about the plane's lacking security features. According to the Times, the FBI requested that it hold off publishing the story and reveal the names of its anonymous sources, which it refused to do.
A top newsroom lawyer for the Times described the subpoenas as "an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs.”
On Monday, the group Demand Progress and nearly three dozen other progressive advocacy groups sent a letter to Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.).
It urged them to oppose the nomination of Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence, a role previously held by Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned in May.
"The committee need not speculate how Clayton would exercise the enormous powers of the federal government: He is demonstrating it now," the coalition wrote. "A federal prosecutor who will weaponize the grand jury process against reporters—and their sources—to punish disclosures unwelcome to the president has shown the Senate the precise instinct that is disqualifying in a director of national intelligence."
"Rewarding an official who is actively executing the White House's war on an independent press with the keys to the intelligence community would be a catastrophic mistake," the letter continued.
The coalition emphasized that Clayton, whose confirmation hearing in the Senate is scheduled for Wednesday, has no experience in intelligence work, having spent most of his career as a corporate lawyer on Wall Street. He was tapped to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump's first term and then to serve as US attorney for the Southern District of New York in his second.
"More troublingly," it said, "Clayton has spent his time in this position weaponizing his authority on behalf of the president, particularly by politicizing high-profile investigations."
As Trump came under fire for his relationship with the late child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, Clayton was assigned to "take the lead" of a Department of Justice probe that selectively targeted a list of the president's enemies.
Clayton also oversaw the process of redacting files related to Epstein before their release to the public, which was met with criticism for including identifying information of abuse survivors, including nude photos, while blacking out the names of Trump and other prominent individuals despite a mandate from Congress.
The letter also notes Clayton's amplifying of Trump's debunked theories of election fraud in California as part of efforts to restrict mail-in voting, as well as his defense of Trump's $1.8 billion "slush fund," which a judge ruled this week constituted an improper act of self-dealing.
"We are living with the serious consequences of unqualified Trump loyalists, blindly pursuing the "MAGA" agenda at agencies like the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Health and Human Services, and more," the letter concludes. "Adding the [intelligence community] to this list—especially in light of Clayton's shocking willingness to weaponize federal power to satisfy the president's political grievances... will have devastating consequences for our national security and the civil liberties of Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let's Call This What It Is: Censorship': Fired '60 Minutes' Journalists Speak Out
Cecilia Vega, one of several journalists ousted from the show, said many of her colleagues "have had to fight to maintain editorial independence" under CBS News' new Trump-aligned corporate owners.
May 29, 2026
A group of veteran “60 Minutes” journalists was fired on Thursday as CBS News’ recently installed right-wing editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, moves to reshape the network in her image. Some of the ousted employees are describing their mass firing as a clear act of political “censorship.”
News had already broken earlier this week that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi was on the way out after more than ten years on the flagship news program, after she'd publicly criticized Weiss' decision to delay her story on the Trump administration's deportation of immigrants to a notorious Salvadoran torture prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), late last year.
But Alfonsi's departure was rumored to be part of a larger shakeup by Weiss, who has been accused of molding the network into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration following the government-approved acquisition of CBS's parent company, Paramount, by billionaire David Ellison, owner of Skydance.
On Thursday, the hammer finally fell. In addition to the formal firing of Alfonsi, The Washington Post reported that Weiss had also fired Tanya Simon, who’d worked on the show for a quarter-century and had recently taken on the role of executive producer. Correspondent Cecilia Vega—who had also covered CECOT for the network before Weiss' arrival—was canned as well, even though her contract was not set to expire until March 2027. So was executive editor Draggan Mihailovich.
In a memo to staff on Thursday, Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski said the firings were the result of them “building a show that thrives in the 21st century.”
“That requires a new approach,” they said, outlining their goals of “expanding ‘60 Minutes’ beyond a one-hour television broadcast, deepening its role across CBS News, and holding everything we produce to the ambition, fairness, and fearlessness that have defined ‘60 Minutes’ at its best.”
To fill the role of executive producer, Weiss brought in a network outsider, Nick Bilton, a former technology columnist at The New York Times and producer of documentaries for HBO and Netflix. Weiss called him “one of the most entrepreneurial journalists of our time and the perfect leader for one of the most entrepreneurial news brands of all time.”
Though Weiss reportedly viewed Simon as a “bad leader” who “couldn’t control the staff,” according to one source who spoke anonymously with The New York Post, Simon announced her departure with warm words for those who’d continue working on “60 Minutes.”
“While leadership has decided it is time for a new chapter—I want to be unequivocally clear about one thing: It has been an immense privilege to lead this broadcast, and I could not be prouder of what we have built, fought for, and delivered together over the last year," Simon said in a statement published Thursday. "'60 Minutes' has always been more than just a broadcast: It is an institution built on independence, grit, and rigorous search for the truth.“
But Vega gave a more candid explanation for her and her colleagues' firings.
"In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories," she said in a statement Thursday. "Reporting teams have held back on submitting story pitches about important news topics out of fear of the internal repercussions."
"Let's call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven," she continued. "It is dangerous for the show and dangerous for democracy."
Vega's criticisms mirror those made earlier this week by Alfonsi, who said her firing was "a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting."
In December, Weiss abruptly pulled Alfonsi's story featuring the testimony of some of the men who were tortured in the CECOT prison shortly before it was set to air, citing a lack of commentary in the segment from Trump administration officials, who had repeatedly ignored the journalists’ requests for an interview. At the time, Alfonsi said Weiss had effectively given the government a “kill switch” on critical reporting. The segment eventually went to air the next month with some editing.
Following her ouster on Thursday, Vega described her own efforts to oppose what she viewed as politically-motivated meddling by network higher-ups.
"I held the line and refused to incorporate suggestions that offend the conscience," she said. "I know from many conversations with colleagues that many producing teams and correspondents working on the show today have had to fight to maintain editorial independence with regularity."
“I am far from the only ‘60 Minutes’ correspondent who has asked herself, ‘What is my personal red line? How much can I push back before I pay the price?'" Vega added.
She said she was proud of her work at '60 Minutes' and cited her reporting on CECOT for the program, which won a DuPont Columbia journalism award, as one of her finest achievements.
Weiss' overhaul of '60 Minutes' comes as Ellison eyes the merger of Paramount with another major media conglomerate, Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.
President Donald Trump has said it's “imperative” that any acquisition of Warner Bros. includes CNN and has publicly denounced a rival bid for the company by Netflix.
Earlier this week, Reuters reported that antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice appeared ready to approve a $110 billion takeover by Paramount following meetings with Ellison and other company executives.
A group of journalists—including tech reporter Kara Swisher, former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, and NBC News legal analyst Katie Phang—warned at an event hosted earlier this week by a coalition of press freedom groups that, especially in the wake of Alfonsi's firing, the government-approved consolidation of media posed a dangerous threat to the future of journalistic freedom.
“I think what’s happening right now is pretty dangerous,” Acosta said. “To essentially announce the departure of Sharyn Alfonsi from 60 Minutes is a very in-your-face move by some people who don’t care very much about the First Amendment.”
“Folks need to use a little bit of their imagination here to recognize what may be coming down the pike,” he said, warning that the Trump administration was building a “strange oligarchical empire… attempting to do state media.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Say Trump NDA Requirement Would 'Kneecap Whistleblower Protections'
The lone intent of the new policy, said one watchdog, "would be to protect the administration from the leak of embarrassing, politically damaging, or unlawful information.”
May 26, 2026
The Trump administration—the self-styled “most transparent administration in history”—plans to require all federal government employees to sign nondisclosure agreements in what it claims is an effort to stop damaging information from leaking, but what critics warn is a cynical effort to subvert accountability and hide malfeasance.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday on a draft notice posted to the Federal Register by the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is expected to be published on Wednesday.
Consistent with the Trump administration’s efforts to squash negative reporting on its endeavors, the new rule contains a sweeping order that would ban federal employees from going to the press with any information deemed “confidential.”
Notably, this is different from the typical designation of "classified" vs. "unclassified." It encompasses “non-public, confidential, or proprietary information” or “any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material that is not currently publicly available and should not be disclosed under applicable law.”
Both current and former employees would need "written permission from an authorized agency official" to speak to the press about matters deemed "confidential" under the draft's terms, or they could be subject to civil and criminal penalties.
It will be up to individual agencies whether they require employees to sign the NDAs, but the document said doing so would "promote consistency across government, better protect confidential information, and better inform federal employees of their rights and obligations regarding confidential information."
Under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon has already enacted a strict NDA that “prohibits the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process," which it enacted late last year along with random lie-detector testing aimed at finding leakers.
The draft notice reported on Tuesday suggests a similar requirement will become blanket policy across a wide swath of agencies. The notice gives an idea of what sorts of information the administration wants to shield from journalistic scrutiny.
The document cites the unauthorized leak in February 2025 of information about the Department of Homeland Security's mass deportation targets in Los Angeles and Aurora, Colorado, which led then-Secretary Kristi Noem to start subjecting employees to polygraph tests to root out leakers.
Another whistleblower in January published identifying information for about 4,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol employees.
The draft also pointed to disclosures to the New York Times and Washington Post, giving the outlets advanced notice of the planned US raid on Venezuela to kidnap President Nicolás Maduro in January, which the outlets waited to publish until after the illegal operation was complete.
The NDA proposal is the latest attack on critical journalism by the Trump administration, part of a pattern to assert stricter control over the flow of information to the public.
The Pentagon has sought to strip credentials from outlets unless they agree to only publish approved information. Trump and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr have threatened the broadcast licenses of networks that give Trump negative coverage and opened investigations into them. Trump, meanwhile, has personally launched unprecedented multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against media outlets, many of which judges have thrown out of court due to lack of merit.
In a statement sent to Common Dreams on Tuesday, Lauren Harper, the Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, called the proposed NDA requirement "not just absurd" but "unnecessary and dangerously secretive."
“This policy, from a president who has previously attempted to impose oppressive, corporate-style confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements on federal employees," Harper said, "would kneecap whistleblower protections, undermine the First Amendment, and wrongly inhibit the public’s right to know.”
OPM Director Scott Kupor defended the requirement. “In much of the private sector," he told the Post, "employees handling sensitive business or customer information are routinely required to sign confidentiality agreements, and the federal government should not be held to a lower standard.”
But critics argue that the federal government doing the same poses potential First Amendment violations. Although federal whistleblower laws protect employees’ ability to go to the press about waste, fraud, and abuse, experts told the Post that the NDA proposal could, in practice, be used as a “catchall gag order” that could lead employees to feel their jobs are in danger if they speak out.
“Trying to force the entire federal government to adopt the Trump organization’s aggressive use of NDAs won’t make anybody safer and won’t improve agency processes," Harper said. "Its sole intent would be to protect the administration from the leak of embarrassing, politically damaging, or unlawful information.”
Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), said the NDA proposal shows the Trump administration is continuing "its efforts to silence federal employees.”
“This proposed rule," said Kelley, "sweeps in an extraordinarily broad category of information, extending restrictions to the very material the public relies on to learn when an administration is causing harm. Federal employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they accept federal employment."
"OPM claims the form will be ‘optional’ for agencies to use and merely restates existing law," Kelley added. "We know that will not be true. OPM will pressure agencies to make the NDA mandatory and then fire employees who refuse to sign it."
He said the rule change was unnecessary because there are already "extensive policies and procedures" to prevent classified and privileged info from being leaked.
Kelley said, "This proposed rule sweeps in an extraordinarily broad category of information, extending restrictions to the very material the public relies on to learn when an administration is causing harm."
Keep ReadingShow Less
When Trump Targets the Media, the World's Autocrats Are Taking Notes
Trump's words and actions against the news media at home are inspiring copycat behavior by authoritarians and dictators around the world, fueling a growing global crisis of press freedom.
May 21, 2026
Only a day after President Donald Trump spoke of unity following a gunman’s abhorrent attempt to kill him and members of his administration at the White House Correspondents' dinner, the president quickly returned to his regularly scheduled programming of berating members of the press that ask him unwanted questions.
In a "60 Minutes" interview with CBS correspondent Norah O’Donnell taped and aired the day following the assassination attempt, Trump repeated many of his now-tired insults about the press, referring to the media in general as “horrible people,” and calling O’Donnell a “disgrace” who should be “ashamed” of herself for raising excerpts of the alleged gunman’s manifesto in a question to the president.
At this point, understandably, many of us have simply begun to tune out Trump’s now-frequent diatribes against the press. Nearly a decade since Trump first tweeted the now-ubiquitous phrase “fake news” and infamously labelled the news media the "enemies of the American people," such insults just don't land like they used to.
Yet Trump's words do in fact matter. While many of Trump’s rhetorical attacks against the press during his first term were dismissed as bluster from a president known for his flair for the dramatic, they laid the groundwork for the broad attack on the media that we’re seeing under Trump 2.0.
Under Trump, attacks on the media have been a leading contributor to the US’ year-over-year tumble in global democracy indexes.
Under his second presidency, the Trump administration has waged a multifaceted campaign against free speech and independent journalism, characterized by retaliatory lawsuits against major media outlets; legal harassment and intimidation of journalists; slashed budgets for public broadcasting; and regulatory pressure, taking aim at reporting not to the administration’s liking.
Even as the First Amendment comes under unprecedented pressure in the US, the impact of the Trump administration’s attacks on the news media hasn’t stopped at the US border. The linguistic framing Trump popularized to villainize the press (and justify executive action against them) has also contributed to a growing crisis of press freedom worldwide.
Trump’s attacks on the media have inspired copycat behavior from press freedom pariahs around the world. From Hungary to Turkey, authoritarian or illiberal leaders have echoed Trump’s hostile rhetoric against the press, adding their own spin in remarks designed to discredit the news outlets and journalists intent on exposing corruption and holding their leaders accountable to their people.
Autocratic regimes in Russia, China, and Egypt have seized on to Trump’s “fake news” framing with actual legislation barring the spread of “false” or “misleading” news and information. What actually defines fake news usually isn’t clear—the vague, ambiguous wording of many of these laws gives the government wide latitude to decide how they are applied.
Amid a rise in global conflict, governments around the world are increasingly using “national security” as a pretext to censor critical war reporting. Only weeks prior to the Correspondents’ dinner, Trump threatened to jail an unnamed journalist from an unnamed media outlet if they did not reveal the identity of the government source who gave the press information about a US military operation to rescue a pilot whose plane was downed in Iran.
While Trump hasn’t yet followed through on this particular threat, other countries have not hesitated to lock up journalists that report inconvenient truths about the conflict. In early March, the government of Kuwait arrested Kuwaiti-American journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, a day after he shared a verified CNN video depicting the downing of a US F-15E fighter jet by the Kuwaiti military during a friendly fire incident. Luckily, after a wave of international pressure on the part of the press freedom community, Shihab-Eldin was released and was able to safely leave Kuwait—at the cost of his citizenship.
Despite the bad news, there are still a few bright spots as journalists and independent media outlets in places like Hungary have demonstrated remarkable resilience and strength in the face of sustained political and economic pressure.
Perhaps no one has better mastered the art of media capture than Hungary’s now-ousted prime minister, Viktor Orbán. Despite Trump’s ill-fated bid to save Orbán’s reelection campaign, the Hungarian people in April proved that government pressure on the media has its limits, and that public interest reporting that holds leaders responsible for corruption and abuses of power cannot be so easily silenced.
At this critical time for democracy around the world, we must not become complacent to rhetorical threats against the media, no matter how banal or flippant they may seem. As history has proven, over and over again, attacks on the press are a harbinger of broader crackdowns on civil liberties and personal freedoms.
The US is not immune to democratic backsliding. Under Trump, attacks on the media have been a leading contributor to the US’ year-over-year tumble in global democracy indexes. We must not make the mistake of normalizing Trump-style attacks on the press. When the president makes a threat against the media, we should listen to what he says. The world’s autocrats certainly are.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Effort to Stifle and Intimidate': Trump DOJ Subpoenas News Outlets Over Iran War Coverage
"The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering," said the newspaper's publisher.
May 12, 2026
The US Justice Department has reportedly subpoenaed The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets at the urging of President Donald Trump, who has complained incessantly about coverage of his illegal and disastrous Iran war.
The Journal reported Monday that it received grand jury subpoenas dated March 4 for records of its journalists as Trump pushed the Justice Department—now led by his former personal attorney, Todd Blanche—to investigate war-related leaks. "Blanche vowed to secure subpoenas specifically targeting the records of reporters who have worked on sensitive national security stories," the Journal reported, citing an unnamed administration official.
During one meeting, the Journal reported, "Trump passed a stack of news articles he and other senior officials thought threatened national security to Blanche with a sticky note on it that said 'treason.'"
Trump and other top administration officials, including Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have publicly voiced outrage over the US media's Iran war coverage and threatened reporters who publish classified information—a common journalistic practice.
In April, Trump said he would work to imprison journalists involved in reporting on a US fighter jet shot down in Iran and subsequent efforts to rescue the warplane's crew. The previous month, Trump floated "charges for treason" against journalists he accused of circulating "false information" about the Iran war.
Don't like the press coverage of your disastrous war with Iran?Just sic DOJ on the press.www.wsj.com/politics/nat...
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) May 11, 2026 at 5:50 PM
Ashok Sinha, the chief communications officer of Dow Jones, the Journal's publisher, said in a statement that "the government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering."
"We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting," said Sinha.
The subpoena targeting Journal reporters pertained to "a February 23 article that reported that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others at the Pentagon warned the president about the risks of an extended military campaign against Iran," the newspaper reported Monday.
"Other news outlets, including Axios and the Washington Post, published similar stories that day," the Journal added. "Trump launched the war five days later, on February 28."
CNN reported Monday that "in addition to The Journal, other news outlets have also received subpoenas in recent months."
"But some of the news organizations have chosen not to comment on the matter for the time being," CNN added.
Scott Stedman, an investigative journalist with The Newsground, accused the leaders of targeted outlets of "cowardice" for not speaking out against the Trump administration's brazen assault on press freedom.
"The president uses the DOJ to target your news organization with subpoenas because he wants to out your sources and you don’t even have the guts to say anything," Stedman wrote. "Grow a fucking spine!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Falls to Lowest-Ever Rank on Press Freedom Index as Trump Pours 'Gasoline on the Fire'
"Trump and his administration have carried out a coordinated war on press freedom since the day he took office, and we will live with the consequences for years to come."
Apr 30, 2026
Reporters Without Borders warned Thursday that the United States is facing a "press freedom crisis" as President Donald Trump and his subordinates wage an aggressive assault on the media that has included threats of treason charges and imprisonment against journalists.
The Trump administration's active disdain for press freedom has pushed the US to its lowest-ever rank on Reporters Without Borders' (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, which ranks countries based on numerous indicators including legal protections for journalists, reporter safety, and overall political hostility toward the press. The US landed at 64th out of 180 countries on the latest version of the index, falling seven spots compared to last year.
"The US has experienced a steady decline in the RSF Index over the past decade, but President Trump is pouring gasoline on the fire," said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF's North America section. "Trump and his administration have carried out a coordinated war on press freedom since the day he took office, and we will live with the consequences for years to come."
"The index shows that this decline is measurable and ongoing, but preventable," Weimers added. "Our message is clear: Protect legal rights, ensure accountability for attacks on media professionals, and support independent media to restore American press freedom."
RSF specifically cites Trump's efforts to dismantle public broadcasters, weaponization of government agencies to punish media outlets and figures critical of his administration, and lawsuits against "disfavored outlets" as factors contributing to the erosion of press freedom in the US.
The index also points to rising violence against journalists during Trump's second term in the White House. "According to the US Press Freedom Tracker," RSF notes, "there were more than 170 attacks on journalists in 2025, nearly double the previous year, driven by an increase in violence against journalists while covering protests and law enforcement activity."
The precipitous decline of press freedoms in the US comes in the context of growing attacks on and criminalization of journalism worldwide. For the first time in the 25-year history of RSF's index, more than half of the world's countries currently fall in the "difficult" or "very serious" categories for press freedoms.
The country that ranked last on the index for 2026 was Eritrea, a nation that is "sadly notorious for detaining journalists longer than any other country in the world," said RSF.
Norway ranked first on this year's index, with RSF praising the country's "robust" legal safeguards for press freedom, "vibrant" media market, and "extensive editorial independence" for publishing companies.
Anne Bocandé, RSF's editorial director, said that "current protection mechanisms" for journalism worldwide "are not strong enough" to withstand escalating attacks by "authoritarian states, complicit or incompetent political powers, predatory economic actors, and underregulated online platforms."
"How much longer will we tolerate the suffocation of journalism, the systematic obstruction of reporters and the continued erosion of press freedom?" Bocandé asked. "The ball is in the court of democracies and their citizens. It is up to them to stand in the way of those who seek to silence the press. The spread of authoritarianism isn’t inevitable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
PEN America Sounds Alarm Over Pentagon's Firing of Stars and Stripes Ombudsman
"Even as the nation is at war, Pentagon leadership is silencing independent voices that uphold credible reporting, part of a broader pattern of restricting press access to evade scrutiny."
Apr 24, 2026
PEN America, one of the nation's leading free expression groups, voiced alarm Friday at the Pentagon's firing of the ombudsman for the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, warning the move marks yet another blow to US press freedoms amid the Trump administration's war of choice in Iran and other lawless actions across the globe.
"Even as the nation is at war, Pentagon leadership is silencing independent voices that uphold credible reporting, part of a broader pattern of restricting press access to evade scrutiny," Tim Richardson, PEN America's journalism and disinformation program director, said in a statement. "Congress must defend the statutory independence of Stars and Stripes so that service members can continue to rely on it for independent reporting.”
Jacqueline Smith, who was tasked with upholding the Stars and Stripes' editorial independence from the Pentagon—which partially funds the newspaper—publicly announced her firing on Thursday in a defiant editorial, writing: "Apparently the Pentagon... doesn’t want you to hear from me anymore about threats to the editorial independence of Stars and Stripes."
Smith, who has served in the congressionally mandated ombudsman role since December 2023, wrote in Stars and Stripes that while she was not given a reason for her firing, "no one should be surprised" by the decision.
"For nearly a year, Pentagon leadership has placed more and more restrictions on the mainstream media. The New York Times sued and when the Defense/War Department lost in court, instead of following the judge’s ruling Secretary [Pete] Hegseth and company pivoted, finding another way to restrict journalists. The judge rejected that attempt, too," Smith wrote. "The laser beam turned to Stars and Stripes on Jan. 15 when Sean Parnell posted on X four paragraphs announcing a 'refocus' of the newspaper. Parnell is Assistant to the Secretary of Defense/War (Public Affairs); my firing notice came from his office."
"Since his 'refocus' post, I’ve been outspoken in my columns, media interviews, talks with national free press groups and communications with Congress about the Pentagon’s moves to take control of Stripes’ content," Smith added. "This newspaper has a long history of commitment to the military community and to journalistic values. Please don’t let it be controlled by Pentagon brass."
"My responsibility to Stripes and the First Amendment was paramount."
In January, the Pentagon announced plans to overhaul Stars and Stripes with the stated goal of moving its content "away from woke distractions that syphon morale"—without offering any examples of such content.
Weeks later, the Pentagon issued a memo declaring that the newspaper was "prohibited" from using "news stories, features, syndicated columns, comic strips and editorial cartoons from commercial news media." The directive barred the paper from reprinting material from The Associated Press and Reuters.
Smith criticized the Pentagon directive as another blatant and "unacceptable" attempt to infringe on the newspaper's editorial independence.
"What is happening with Stripes is within the broader context of the Pentagon attempting to restrict the mainstream media," she wrote in an April column. "At first it was by closing off areas of the complex where journalists previously had been able to go unescorted, then it followed last fall with the demand for the press to sign an agreement essentially saying it would not use any information not authorized by the department. That’s when more than two dozen journalists from mainstream media turned in their press badges and walked out. They still cover the news."
In a message to Stars and Stripes staff following her firing, Smith said she "knew it was risky to speak out."
"But my responsibility to Stripes and the First Amendment was paramount," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Latest Threat to Press, Hegseth Tells Journalists to ‘Think Twice’ Before Publishing Classified Info
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked reporters who publish stories based on leaks as "incredibly irresponsible and unpatriotic."
Apr 24, 2026
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth lobbed his latest threat against the American press during a briefing on Friday, telling reporters to "think twice" about publishing stories containing classified information—a common journalistic practice that has brought to light mass surveillance, war crimes, and other government abuses.
Hegseth said Friday that the Pentagon takes "leaking very seriously here" and blasted reporting based on leaks containing classified information as "incredibly irresponsible and unpatriotic." He went on to "encourage members of the press to think twice about the lives they're affecting when they publish things in their publications like the New York Times."
Q: I’m with O'Keefe media group. Earlier this week, James O'Keefe published a story on a department of army nuclear chief who revealed top secret national security information to a stranger he met on a dating app. Will you defer him for termination and prosecution?
Hegseth: He… pic.twitter.com/P9o6cweW2i
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 24, 2026
Hegseth's Pentagon—and the Trump administration more broadly—has been aggressive in attempting to curtail press freedoms, particularly amid the US war of choice in Iran. President Donald Trump said earlier this month that his administration would attempt to jail journalists who reported leaked information pertaining to a US fighter jet recently shot down in Iran.
Last month, the Pentagon temporarily barred press photographers from media briefings on the war because Hegseth's staff was reportedly displeased with "unflattering" pictures of the Pentagon chief.
The Pentagon has also attempted to force journalists to promise not to publish or even solicit information that the department has not specifically authorized for release—with violators forced to surrender their press passes. A federal judge has blocked that policy and rebuked the Pentagon earlier this month for attempting to reimpose the policy with insubstantial changes.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted in a recent column for The Intercept that "the Pentagon’s legal filings imply that reporters who don’t follow the rules risk more than their press passes."
"The government argued that although journalists may lawfully ask questions of 'authorized' Pentagon personnel, 'a journalist does solicit the commission of a criminal act, and that solicitation is not protected by the First Amendment, when he or she solicits … non-public information from individuals who are legally obligated not to disclose that information,'" Stern wrote. "The government’s argument would have turned countless Pulitzer-winning national security reporters into criminals."
"The Trump administration is barging through the door the Biden administration left wide open, when, despite warnings from First Amendment advocates, it extracted a plea deal from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Espionage Act charges for obtaining and publishing government records, including about Iraq war crimes," Stern added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jailed US-Kuwaiti Journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin Acquitted on All Charges
The head of the Committee to Protect Journalists has called Shihab-Eldin's arrest for social media posts about the Iran war part of a trend of “increasing restrictions on freedom of expression” in the Gulf states.
Apr 23, 2026
US-Kuwaiti journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin is expected to be released after more than seven weeks in jail following his acquittal by a Kuwaiti court on Thursday.
The 41-year-old Shihab-Eldin, an award-winning reporter and documentarian who has worked at HuffPost, The New York Times, and Al Jazeera English, was detained by Kuwaiti authorities on March 2, just days after the US and Israel launched the opening salvos of their aggressive war against Iran, which was met with retaliatory strikes against US military bases across the Persian Gulf, including in Kuwait.
Shihab-Eldin, a US and Kuwaiti citizen who was in Kuwait to visit family, frequently commented on his public Substack account about news related to the war. One of his recent posts included a geolocated video, which was already public, of an American F-15 Strike Eagle jet falling from the sky near a US air base.
CNN later confirmed the video's authenticity, while the US military confirmed it was one of three American planes downed that day in what was described as a "friendly fire incident."
But shortly after posting the video, Shihab-Eldin found himself detained by Kuwaiti authorities on charges of "spreading malicious information online" and "harming national security."
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) called these "vague and overly broad accusations that are routinely used to silence independent journalists."
Legal counsel hired by Shihab-Eldin's sisters said on Thursday that he had been declared innocent of the charges by a Kuwaiti court and was expected to be released imminently, though some details were still being finalized.
“We are relieved that Ahmed Shihab-Eldin has been found innocent after 52 days in detention,” said Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the CPJ. “Ahmed’s freedom and safety remain our topmost priority, and we will continue to closely monitor his case.”
Kuwait has come under heavy fire from Iran since the war began. In addition to attacks against American air bases, which have killed at least six US soldiers, Iran has targeted Kuwait's main airport and facilities at the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation.
Shihab-Eldin's arrest came as the Kuwaiti government began an aggressive clampdown on the sharing of video and other information related to Iranian attacks.
On May 2, Kuwait's Ministry of Information warned the public "not to photograph or publish any clips or information related to missiles or relevant locations."
Days later, the ministry announced that it was referring several "media law violators" for prosecution. It said, "Freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed within the framework of the law and is coupled with professional responsibility, accuracy, credibility, and obtaining information from official sources."
On March 15, Kuwait introduced a censorship law stating that companies and individuals were "obligated to preserve the supreme interests of the military authorities." It imposed prison sentences of up to 10 years for anyone who “disseminates news, publishes statements, or spreads false rumors related to military entities” with the intent to undermine confidence in them.
The verdict in Shihab-Eldin's case was just one of 137 handed down on Thursday by a new court meant to oversee crimes related to national security and terrorism. Those defendants have been accused of “inciting sectarian strife on social media platforms,” according to Drop Site News, which cited Jordan's Al-Rai newspaper.
Shihab-Eldin was just one of nine defendants to be acquitted, though in 109 of the cases, no criminal punishment was handed down. Seventeen defendants received three years in prison, while another 10 received one year.
Ginsberg said Kuwait's repressive clampdown is part of a trend of "increasing restrictions on freedom of expression” that has been observed across the wider Middle East, and particularly the autocratic Gulf states that host American military bases, since the war's outbreak.
The governments of Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates have each arrested hundreds of people for filming or sharing content relating to Iranian strikes or other information related to the war or protests against the government, according to a report by Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN).
"This wave of repression reflects a deeper trend among Arab regimes: growing public frustration with US policy in the region and their governments' alignment with Washington," said Yara Bataineh, an editorial associate at DAWN's Democracy in Exile. "This crackdown did not begin with the war on Iran. Across several Arab states, authorities had already moved to suppress pro-Palestinian activism during Israel's genocide in Gaza—a pattern that has since intensified."
Israel's genocide in Gaza and expansionist military campaign into Lebanon have also proven historically deadly to journalists—including the Lebanese journalist Amal Khalid, who died under a pile of rubble on Wednesday from an attack by Israeli forces, who also attacked Red Cross workers attempting to rescue her. She is among hundreds of journalists and media workers who have been killed by Israeli attacks since 2023, according to the International Federation of Journalists.
“Almost inevitably, during a war, we see countries try to impose restrictions in the name of national security, and almost always that doesn’t just target genuine national security issues, but ends up covering a broad range of issues that are essential for us to understand what is happening,” Ginsberg told MS NOW. “That’s why we need journalists. We need journalists on the ground who can be our eyes and ears when we can’t get into these places and see for ourselves, so that we can understand what’s happening.”
She added, "It is an incredibly challenging time to be a journalist, and Ahmed’s case is emblematic of that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy