Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Another journalist, Estefany Rodríguez, sits in Immigration and Customs Enforcement lockup amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on press freedom. Read on for more about how you can help free Rodríguez and support a new bill to reform the Espionage Act.

Tell Congress to protect journalists and whistleblowers

This week, Rep. Rashida Tlaib introduced the Daniel Ellsberg Press Freedom and Whistleblower Protection Act to reform the archaic Espionage Act and stop prosecutors from treating reporters and their sources like spies. We’re honored that the bill is named after our late co-founder, Ellsberg, the legendary Pentagon Papers whistleblower and former Espionage Act defendant.

For decades, the Espionage Act has been used to chill national security reporting. The first Trump administration used it to charge WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — a prosecution that shamefully continued under President Joe Biden. Now, the Trump administration is arguing that journalists violate the law when they report government secrets.

Use our new action center to tell your members of Congress to support the Ellsberg Act.

• Write to Congress here

Watch our online event introducing the Ellsberg Act

We also co-hosted an online event announcing the bill featuring Tlaib, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Executive Director Trevor Timm, FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper, Ellsberg’s son Robert Ellsberg, and Defending Rights & Dissent Policy Director Chip Gibbons.

• Watch it on YouTube

Free Estefany Rodríguez from ICE

Nashville, Tennessee, journalist Estefany Rodríguez was arrested by federal immigration agents on flimsy “gotcha” charges last week. Her lawyers say she was targeted because she reported critically about the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

It wouldn’t surprise us, given the administration’s horrendous record of targeting immigrants over constitutionally protected speech. Needless arrests of noncitizen journalists silence the very reporters best positioned to cover ICE’s impact on their communities.

Use our action center to tell lawmakers to help free Rodríguez.

• Write to Congress here

The Oscars in solitary confinement

Footage captured by Raoul Poole, Robert Earl Council, and Melvin Ray using contraband cell phones to circumvent prison censorship is the centerpiece of HBO’s “The Alabama Solution,” which is up for an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature this weekend.

But while the academy deliberated, the three individuals who made the film possible sat in extreme solitary confinement.

FPF Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern, along with incarcerated journalist and FPF columnist Jeremy Busby and Corinne Shanahan of the Institute to End Mass Incarceration, wrote for Inquest that “the United States may sometimes protect those who expose tyranny abroad (at least when the tyrants are geopolitical adversaries), but those who shine a light on abuses back home are on their own.”

• Read more

Judge’s rebuke of DOJ in journalist raid case exposes bigger problem

A judge who approved the search warrant for the raid of Washington Post journalist Hannah Natanson’s home has recently chastised prosecutors for failing to tell him about a federal law that limits such raids, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980.

But Judge William Porter’s rebuke sparked a debate: Isn’t it the judge’s job to know the law himself? FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus explains that the answer is more complicated than it may seem.

• Read more

Appeals court picks the wrong constitutional emergency

A federal appeals court last week vacated an order from an already dismissed lawsuit that had limited the Department of Homeland Security’s tactics against journalists and protesters in the Chicago area.

Stern wrote for the Chicago Tribune that if appellate courts are looking for rulings to vacate unasked, they should focus on those that facilitate censorship and impunity, rather than those that restrain tear gas and rubber bullets.

• Read the op-ed

Filming federal agents in the field

Most guidance for journalists on filming federal agents — which can be deadly these days — is aimed at those in newsrooms with resources. Yet many independent and freelance journalists are working on the ground right now without such institutional support.

Our digital security team spoke with two such independent journalists about how they approach filming federal officers.

• Read more here

What we're reading

DHS ousts CBP privacy officers who questioned ‘illegal’ orders

Wired
The department’s retaliation against Freedom of Information Act officers for making lawful releases is a blatant abuse of power.

Pentagon bars press photographers over ‘unflattering’ Hegseth photos

The Washington Post
Are we supposed to believe Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth when he says he restricts press access for national security? Hegseth only cares about his own image, and all of his censorship should be taken in that context.

Inside the legal defense of Georgia Fort and Don Lemon

Columbia Journalism Review
The government’s claims in the Lemon and Fort cases that prosecutors are “the arbiters of journalistic practice” is deeply chilling, as Joel Simon writes.

DOJ attorney faces complaint for saying Chicago-area protests were led by ‘terrorist organizations’

Block Club Chicago
FPF filed this complaint because fabricating a violent terrorist invasion of an American city to justify suppressing First Amendment rights is “an effort to subvert the rule of law,” Stern explains.

freedom.press/issues/pass-the-…

Voting on Chat Control concluded on 11 March 2026 in Brussels, with the European Parliament demanding changes to the temporary Chat Control regime, which is set to expire in April 2026. The Parliament supported amendments that promote a targeted approach, restricting monitoring only to individuals under suspicion rather than permitting indiscriminate, general monitoring of all users.

Members of the European Parliament who opposed the Chat Control regime argued that the use of technology to support and mobilise child protection from online abuse should not intrude upon the privacy of users.

Markéta Gregorová said:

“Until now, this system represented a completely disproportionate intrusion into our privacy.

Platforms were scanning millions of private messages of innocent citizens without any reasonable suspicion.

Thanks to the amendment we proposed and which the European Parliament supported today, the report now clearly moves toward a targeted approach. Monitoring should only apply to the communications of suspected individuals and only with judicial authorisation. This is an important step forward for protecting Europeans’ fundamental rights.”

The positive outcome reflects the collective action of digital-rights advocates and civil society organisations, who argued that scanning all private messages would amount to mass surveillance.

The positive outcome reflects the collective action of digital-rights advocates and civil society organisations, who argued that scanning all private messages would amount to mass surveillance.

Patrick Breyer (Pirates Party) commented:

“Today is a sensational victory for the countless citizens who made calls and sent emails to save their digital privacy of correspondence. Digital privacy is alive! Just as with our physical mail, the warrantless screening of our digital communications must remain taboo. EU governments must finally realize that true child protection requires secure apps (‘Security by Design’), the removal of illegal material at the source, and targeted investigations against suspects with a judicial warrant—not overreaching, pointless mass surveillance.”

However, this victory may only be temporary. With the current regime set to expire in April 2026, the debate is likely to intensify once again. The central question remains whether the drive to protect children online will continue to be pitted against the fundamental rights of privacy, encryption, and freedom of communication.

Here, the key concern is that the technological infrastructure behind “chat control”, particularly AI-driven scanning algorithms, may still pose serious risks to digital freedoms. At this juncture, it is important to understand the mechanism of AI-driven scanning algorithms and the potential risks they pose to the user’s privacy.

The algorithmic core of chat control

At the centre of the policy debate is the growing use of artificial intelligence to detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online. Organisations such as Thorn have developed machine-learning systems that analyse images, videos, and text patterns to identify potentially abusive content. The organisations then aggressively lobbied the Commission to make their tools mandatory. These tools promise to detect not only known illegal images but also previously unseen material by recognising patterns associated with exploitation.

Supporters of such technologies argue that AI can dramatically accelerate investigations and help identify victims more quickly.

Here is an overview of the main AI technologies used in Chat Controls:

• Client-Side Scanning (CSS): AI tools built into a user’s device ( smartphone or laptop) that scan messages, images, or files before they are encrypted and sent or after they are received.
• Image and Video Classifiers: AI models trained to detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in images or videos, including content that has not been previously reported.
• Text Analysis (NLP -Natural Language Processing): Algorithms that analyse chat messages to identify possible grooming behaviour, such as attempts to manipulate minors or solicit sexual content.
• Perceptual Hashing (PhotoDNA/PDQ): Tools that create a digital fingerprint of known illegal images, allowing platforms to detect and block previously identified abuse material quickly.

The above-mentioned core technologies operate through scanning, analysis & classification, and flagging & reporting.

However, as technology advances quickly and AI takes on a bigger role in monitoring online spaces, digital rights advocates see this as a threat to user privacy. They argue that these tools could lead to automated monitoring of billions of private messages, changing how digital communication works.

This concern is not just theoretical or a political argument. Many proposals in the EU’s Child Sexual Abuse Regulation would require platforms to scan user content, including possibly encrypted messages, to find and flag suspicious material. Critics warn that these systems could turn messaging platforms into places of constant algorithmic surveillance. Instead of police focusing on specific suspects, algorithms would scan everyone’s private messages for possible wrongdoing. This could harm privacy rights and create extra work for law enforcement.

Irena Joveva, LIBE shadow rapporteur from Gibanje Svoboda (Slovenia), argued that end-to-end encryption must be upheld. At the same time, any potential scanning should remain limited to known illegal material and suspected users. She further stressed that Europe can protect children from online predators without eavesdropping on every citizen.

Such arguments reflect a broader principle in European law: that surveillance measures must be proportionate and limited to specific investigations.

​

The dangers of algorithmic detection

A few case studies:

• In 2021, Apple Inc. announced a system that would use on-device scanning to detect child sexual abuse material before photos were uploaded to iCloud. Security researchers identified flaws in the NeuralHash hashing tool. The argument was that unrelated images could produce the same hash value. This raised the possibility that harmless images might be incorrectly flagged as illegal material.
• A woman named Riley, a fitness center owner, had her business accounts on Facebook and other Meta platforms suspended following a wrongful flagging that came under the purview of violations of terms of use in relation to child sexual exploitation.
• Photographs of toddlers taken by parents to solicit medical advice and prescription have been reported by Google’s AI systems without any prior notice to the parents under child exploitation. Another example of a false alarm without investigating the connotations and situations.

The above are a few examples from millions of harrowing experiences users undergo as a result of false implications arising from AI algorithm detections. Certainly, a strong reason why digital rights advocates believe automated detection can go wrong in practice.

Even when used for legitimate purposes, AI detection systems remain controversial. Critics argue that these tools are far from reliable.

Algorithms trained to detect abusive material or suspicious conversations can generate large numbers of false positives, incorrectly flagging innocent content as suspicious. When such systems operate at a massive scale, even a small error rate could lead to thousands of wrongful reports and investigations.

Privacy advocates also warn that AI moderation systems struggle to interpret context. Automated detection tools could potentially misinterpret images, jokes, or ordinary conversations.

For activists, this raises a fundamental concern: should algorithms be trusted to judge private conversations?

Encryption under pressure

Another major concern is the potential impact of chat scanning on encrypted communication.

Many modern messaging platforms use end-to-end encryption to ensure that only the sender and recipient can view communications. Critics argue that scanning technologies, especially those involving client-side scanning, could undermine this security by analysing content before it is encrypted.

Security researchers have warned that weakening encryption for surveillance purposes could expose users to cyber threats and undermine digital security more broadly. Once a system capable of inspecting private messages exists, they argue, it becomes difficult to guarantee it will be used for only one purpose.

A wider struggle over algorithmic governance

The debate over chat control reflects a broader transformation in digital governance. Across Europe, algorithms are increasingly used to moderate content, evaluate behaviour, and monitor digital activity.

Digital rights groups warn that integrating AI-driven scanning into private communications could set a precedent for broader algorithmic surveillance. What begins as a child-protection measure could evolve into a broader monitoring infrastructure embedded in everyday digital platforms.

For this reason, activists argue that the recent parliamentary vote represents more than a procedural decision. It is a signal that lawmakers recognise the risks of indiscriminate digital surveillance.

The future of private communication

The fight over chat control is far from over. Negotiations on the EU’s long-term regulation to combat online child abuse are still ongoing, and the final shape of the law remains uncertain.

What is clear, however, is that artificial intelligence will play an increasingly central role in how online platforms detect and moderate harmful content.

The challenge for policymakers is to harness these technologies without compromising fundamental rights.

For digital rights advocates like the European Pirates, EDRI, and the European Parliament Research Services, the answer lies in maintaining a clear boundary: protecting children online must not come at the cost of turning private communication into a permanently monitored space governed by algorithms.

​

europeanpirates.eu/ai-chat-sca…

Government officials have discovered a new tactic for attacking reporting they don’t like: They just call it “doxxing.”

At the federal, state, and local levels, authorities are increasingly stretching the term doxxing beyond recognition to threaten journalists who report about immigration enforcement, potential misconduct by elected and appointed officials, and military actions.

Unfortunately, this reframing of routine journalism as doxxing works all too often exactly as intended, chilling reporting and leaving the public less informed.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) recently spoke to four reporters who have firsthand experience facing accusations of doxxing based on their reporting, along with the harassment and legal threats that often followed. We discussed how this tactic works, and how journalists and others can fight back.

youtube.com/embed/d8EBBionVHg?…

“Framing people who are in positions of, frankly, incredible power in the government — which we all pay taxes to and all deserve transparency from — as victims of doxxing for just naming what their roles are and what they’re supposedly doing is a great way to continue to demonize media,” Vittoria Elliott, a reporter for Wired, explained.

Elliott described how she was harassed online and faced legal threats from the Department of Justice after her reporting about the young engineers who held power at DOGE.

Elliott urged news media companies to recognize that journalists now report in an environment where the government is actively attempting to criminalize certain elements of their work. Journalists and media organizations must be “clear eyed” about the risks, she said, and explain the process of journalism to the public, while also doing more to “prepare for the fact that elements of our jobs are going to be recategorized as criminal activity.”

Doug Sovern, a former investigative reporter and political reporter for San Francisco’s KCBS radio, agreed that the “doxxing” label is a tactic of demonization, adding that government officials “also know that some media will back down” when faced with even spurious accusations of doxxing.

After the Federal Communications Commission threatened the license of KCBS for reporting on an immigration raid that happened in public, the station’s corporate owner “started basically spiking interviews,” Sovern said, “out of fear of more reprisal or antagonizing the Trump administration.”

“There’s been no loss of license. Nothing’s happened,” Sovern added. “But there was so much fear on the part of our corporation and their bottom line that it really had a chilling effect on everything we were doing in the political space.”

Gregory Royal Pratt, an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune, spoke about the harassment and threats he faced after a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson condemned him for reporting on a public immigration raid in Chicago. He echoed Elliott and Sovern, explaining that doxxing accusations are “clearly a very deliberate thing meant to intimidate me out of reporting.”

“At least for a moment I thought about it,” Pratt added, “Then it’s like, ‘All right, let’s get back to work.’”

Pratt also hailed as “American heroes” the ordinary people who record immigration agents in public and are themselves often accused of doxxing. “People recording and documenting history as it happens, without interfering, without being violent,” he said, “is really, really important.” He added that journalists and the public “would not be getting the truth out of the federal government without it.”

Charlie Kratovil, the founder and editor of New Brunswick Today, described his legal challenge to Daniel’s Law in New Jersey, which ultimately resulted in a loss before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Under the law, which prohibits the publication of certain information about government or law enforcement officials, “We’ve seen governments wholesale just remove all kinds of records from the internet that used to be public, whether it’s property records, financial disclosure statements — and for people who are not police, not law enforcement, not judges,” Kratovil said. “The seemingly endless expansion of this is only going to lead to more corruption and more crime and people getting away with it,” he added.

Watch the whole event here.

If you’re a journalist facing online harassment as a result of your reporting, check out Freedom of the Press Foundation’s resource page on preparing for online harassment or request a training with our Digital Security Training team.

freedom.press/issues/how-the-p…

Is European regulation really holding back innovation, or is it a strategic asset that we are about to sell off? This piece debunks the official narrative of a European Commission that claims to be “learning to regulate better”. Through incisive analysis, it warns that the fear of falling behind in the artificial intelligence race is pushing Brussels to sacrifice fundamental rights in the name of a misunderstood competitiveness.

The post Fewer rules, more innovation? The miscalculation of the new Brussels appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).