Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

This week saw President Donald Trump threatening journalists with bogus prosecutions and his administration bringing charges against another whistleblower. But the federal government is far from the only bad actor when it comes to press freedom these days. Read on for more.

Whistleblower prosecution has nothing to do with national security

Courtney Williams, a former Army employee, has been charged under the Espionage Act for blowing the whistle to journalist Seth Harp on sexual harassment and discrimination she experienced and witnessed. Harp cited Williams as a source in his 2025 book, “The Fort Bragg Cartel,” and an article in Politico Magazine.

Freedom fo the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern said, “The notion that an administration that casually posts genocide threats during its illegal wars is worried about national security risks from whistleblowers who expose sexual harassment is absurd.”

• Read our statement

DOJ wants to scrap the Presidential Records Act

FPF Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper wrote for The Intercept about a bogus legal opinion that the PRA — the Watergate-era law establishing that presidents’ records are public property — is unconstitutional.

The Justice Department, Harper writes, “is effectively claiming that the presidency has private ownership over the American story.” You can use our action center to tell Congress to speak out against this attack on transparency.

• Take action

No kings in DC, no compliance in LA

The Los Angeles Police Department obstructed, threatened, and arrested journalists covering the third round of “No Kings” protests — violating a federal injunction.

Watch FPF Deputy Director of Advocacy Adam Rose — who was on the ground in LA that day — explain what he witnessed. And if you’re a journalist who faced a press freedom violation, contact our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which is documenting the violence in LA.

And speaking of injunctions officers violated left and right, Rose has another video about an appellate ruling upholding a similar court order against the Department of Homeland Security for its press freedom violations. There’s plenty more to see on our YouTube channel.

• Watch more

The Republican about-face on Qatari media funding

A few years ago, then-Sen. Marco Rubio and his colleagues successfully urged the first Trump administration to force Al Jazeera to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

But the second Trump administration, in which Rubio serves as secretary of state, is putting its weight behind Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of CNN parent Warner Bros. Discovery, even though the deal is financed, in part, by a Qatari sovereign wealth fund. Stern wrote about how the reversal shows that past fearmongering over foreign investment in media, including Al Jazeera and TikTok, had nothing to do with the supposed security risks and everything to do with controlling the narrative.

• Read more

Judge tells Pentagon to stop censoring journalists again. Think they’ll listen this time?

Federal Judge Paul Friedman entered anorder yesterday compelling the Pentagon to comply with hisprior prohibition on enforcing its unconstitutional press policy.

Stern said in a statement that, although we appreciate Friedman granting The New York Times’ motion to compel, “at this point, any court order that responds to the administration’s blatant lawlessness with anything less than sanctions, contempt of court findings, and attorney disciplinary referrals is a disappointment.”

• Read more

Sources aren’t safe when surveillance is for sale

Government agencies frequently evade the Fourth Amendment with the “data broker loophole” — using taxpayer dollars to buy sensitive, personal data about Americans and others from private data brokers.

FPF Senior Advocacy Adviser Caitlin Vogus explains that the use of data brokers for immigration enforcement has shown just how invasive this surveillance can be and how the government could use this purchased spy power to target journalists and their sources.

• Read more

Trump’s threat to jail reporters deserves bipartisan condemnation

On Monday, Trump threatened to jail unnamed journalists if they do not reveal their sources for reporting about the mission to rescue airmen shot down in Iran. (Later in the week, he bizarrely threatened CNN with prosecution over completely accurate reporting).

Stern said in a statement, “Some of the most important news stories in American history have come from confidential sources, including stories that have brought down corrupt presidents. That’s why Trump is so obsessed with leaks.”

• Read more

So-called ‘antifa’ prosecutions endanger the First Amendment and the press

We joined Defending Rights & Dissent and the National Lawyers Guild for a conversation about the Prairieland case in Texas, which the Trump administration is touting as its first successful domestic terrorism prosecution of “antifa.”

The defendants’ possession of anarchist zines was repeatedly touted as evidence of … something or other, even though the zines had nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged crimes any of them were accused of committing. That’s concerning to everyone who depends on the First Amendment, including the press.

• Watch the discussion

What we're reading

Using AI safely as a journalist

FPF digital security team
Check out our digital security team’s three-part series to help journalists better understand risks of using artificial intelligence and set boundaries around which AI systems and tools make sense to use, adjust, or avoid.

Israel kills 3 journalists in Gaza and Lebanon in one day; CPJ calls for international action

Committee to Protect Journalists
This isn’t just a tragedy. It’s a pattern enabled by impunity — and by U.S. political and military backing.

The infrastructure nobody told you about

Backstory & Strategy
A new FBI budget request would give NSPM-7 real teeth. Journalists who report on matters arguably fitting within the nebulous scope of the presidential memorandum on domestic terrorism should take note.

Cherry Hill school district targets citizen with ludicrous lawsuit over public records

New Jersey Monitor
The district thinks a journalist filing 14 Freedom of Information Act requests in a year is a reason to sue to ban him from filing any more. Wait until they find out how many FOIAs FPF files.

freedom.press/issues/whistlebl…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Washington, D.C., April 9, 2026 — Federal Judge Paul Friedman today entered an order compelling the Pentagon to comply with his prior prohibition against enforcing its unconstitutional press policy, which restricts journalists from asking questions to “unauthorized” personnel. The order was accompanied by a 20-page opinion explaining why the Pentagon’s revised policy was just a rehash of the one he struck down, and in some ways worse.

The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern:

“We appreciate Judge Friedman seeing the Pentagon’s revised policy for the nonsense it is and granting The New York Times’ motion. The Constitution, of course, allows and encourages journalists to ask questions to anyone they want, authorized or unauthorized, and to publish the answers they get.

“But at this point, any court order that responds to the administration’s blatant lawlessness with anything less than sanctions, contempt of court findings, and attorney disciplinary referrals is a disappointment. It’s easy to write opinions listing the myriad ways the administration flouts the Constitution and court orders. The hard part is doing something about it. The administration will likely play more games to avoid complying with today’s order as well. Hopefully, Judge Friedman will rise to the moment.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/pentagon-…

In August 2020, then-Sen. Marco Rubio and several of his colleagues urged the first Trump administration to force Al Jazeera to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. A month later, Trump’s Department of Justice granted their request.

The largely Republican coalition argued that Qatar created unspecified security risks by funding a media outlet that operated inside the United States and influenced Americans. Similar arguments led Congress to pass, and the Supreme Court to uphold, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act to force the sale of TikTok.

What a difference a few years and a $400 million jet make.

The Trump administration is now putting its weight behind Paramount Skydance’s plans to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery with help from sovereign wealth funds from Gulf States — including Qatar — which reportedly committed this week to investing up to $24 billion.

Trump, now-Secretary of State Rubio, and the other Republicans once alarmed by the supposed threat of Qatari-funded media are silent on potential significant Qatari backing of CNN and HBO (which Warner owns). The proposed investment has been public knowledge since last year.

The hypocrisy underscores why the government shouldn’t decide who owns or finances media, no matter who is in the White House, particularly absent a specific, imminent national security threat. Such authority will invariably be politicized to steer ownership away from any given administration’s critics and toward its allies, with foreign influence as a mere pretext.

As Justice Hugo Black famously said in the Pentagon Papers case, “the word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.”

The administration doesn’t care if Ellison, the Qataris, or anyone else meddles with CNN, as long as they do so in ways the president likes.

The self-serving Republican about-face on foreign investment proves Black right. Paramount Skydance is led by Trump ally David Ellison, who has a proven track record of MAGA-fying news outlets and who has reportedly promised Trump the “sweeping changes” he wants at CNN. Put simply, Trump is confident that the new CNN will serve his interests better than the old one, precisely because he expects ownership to influence coverage.

Ellison has offered assurances that his foreign investors won’t meddle in news decisions, but there’s no indication that the administration intends to do anything to confirm that’s true. And Ellison has little credibility. He has also said he won’t meddle, which is almost certainly nonsense given his track record.

The bottom line is the administration doesn’t care if Ellison, the Qataris, or anyone else meddles, as long as they do so in ways the president likes.

Similarly, it was never about whether foreign powers’ alleged influence through Al Jazeera (or TikTok) harmed America’s interests. It was about whether those outlets furthered the agendas of those in power, for example, by supporting wars they bankrolled. Foreign ownership just offered the government a hook to punish and harass them when they didn’t.

Fearmongering about threats from Al Jazeera arose largely from the outlet’s critical coverage of Israel and, later, that nation’s U.S.-funded war in Gaza. Israel has taken it further, baselessly labeling Al Jazeera reporters terrorists as an excuse to target and kill them.

But as Trump recently said, “When somebody’s nice to me, I love that person. Even if they’re bad people, I couldn’t care less.” Now that a Qatari sovereign wealth fund seeks to invest in media that he believes will be nice to him, Trump could “care less” about supposed security risks. The U.S. government welcomes Qatari media money.

Same goes for TikTok. The worries about Chinese propaganda were really about anti-war sentiments catching on with young people. The panic about surveillance was a red herring.

If China were looking to surveil Americans’ social media activity, it could have bought the data TikTok allegedly enabled it to monitor straight from the data brokers that the same lawmakers refuse to rein in with comprehensive privacy legislation.

The marketplace of ideas isn’t limited to domestic ones.

Tellingly, when Trump became president and stalled the TikTok sale that was supposedly so urgently needed, none of them seemed to mind.

That’s not to say Al Jazeera and TikTok are above criticism — they’re certainly not. Maybe Qatar and China do influence their content. We can’t prove otherwise, any more than we can prove the British government doesn’t meddle with the BBC. But Americans who don’t like Qatar’s influence, if any, can go elsewhere. The marketplace of ideas isn’t limited to domestic ones.

And any Qatari influence likely pales in comparison to the influence Trump’s administration seeks to exert over private media outlets in the U.S., let alone government-funded ones. Has Qatar ever threatened to jail Al Jazeera journalists for not outing their sources, or to criminally investigate them for accurate reporting, let alone both in the same week?

Trump would probably be insulted by the implication that foreign governments can propagandize his constituents — he and his domestic allies like the Ellisons are doing just fine at that on their own, thank you very much.

In any event, Trump, presumably, won’t be president forever. Assuming the Paramount transaction goes through, what’s to stop a Democratic administration that dislikes the new CNN from accusing foreign investors of dictating its content and demanding it register under FARA, or labeling Qatar a foreign adversary and weaponizing the law used to ban TikTok against CNN’s websites and apps?

Never mind whether the coverage they dislike is really dictated by Qatar, as opposed to the Ellisons or whatever hacks they hire to run their news outlet. Foreigners are far easier to scapegoat. Yes, there’s the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court was all too willing to throw it aside when it came to foreign-funded media in the TikTok case. Just mumble something about national security and data privacy, and you’re in the clear, apparently.

For now, any Republicans who are legitimately concerned about risks to national security (as opposed to their own reputational security) from foreign ownership of U.S. media could prove it by opposing Qatari investment in CNN, just like they did with Al Jazeera and TikTok. They’d be wrong, but at least they’d be consistent.

freedom.press/issues/republica…

Constitutional limits are increasingly being replaced with commercial transactions, putting Americans’ privacy and the free press at risk. But our representatives on Capitol Hill will soon have a chance to plug that gap.

The Fourth Amendment was designed to protect us from government searches and seizures without a warrant. But government agencies can evade this requirement with the “data broker loophole” — using taxpayer dollars to buy sensitive, personal data about Americans and others from private data brokers.

Although we’ve known about this problem for a while, recent reporting about the use of data brokers for immigration enforcement has shown just how invasive state surveillance fueled by data broker purchases can be. That reporting also has important lessons for how the government could use this purchased spy power to target journalists and their sources.

Investigative outlets like 404 Media have been at the forefront of exposing how government agencies are using data brokers to power the Trump administration’s deportation campaign. The commercial data the government is exploiting can be drawn from everyday apps like those for weather, gaming, or news.

404 Media used public records to report on Customs and Border Patrol’s purchase of online advertising data that it can use to follow people’s “precise movements over time” by tracking their phones.

It also reported on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s use of tools based on commercial location data to monitor phones in entire neighborhoods. This kind of location tracking can identify who is using a particular device by tracking where they live or work, and can then be used to follow their movements.

According to 404 Media, ICE has also turned to Palantir, a notorious data mining and surveillance company, to find neighborhoods to raid and to create dossiers on potential targets for deportation. At least one of Palantir’s tools is powered by a Thomson Reuters product called Clear, which sells “names, addresses, car registration information, Social Security numbers, and details on someone’s ethnicity.”

Together, this and other reporting make it obvious that the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up surveillance capabilities based on the data broker loophole. And this tactic isn’t limited to immigration enforcement. In the past, the government has used data it purchased to track users of a Muslim prayer app and protesters in the racial justice movement, for instance.

With the Trump administration determined to prosecute journalists and their sources, it’s reasonable to be concerned that the data broker loophole could be used in leak investigations, too. The Department of Justice has pledged to target leakers, and the FBI has already raided one reporter’s house in connection with a national security leak investigation.

In March, FBI Director Kash Patel, who once promised to “come after” the media, testified before Congress that his agency was once again purchasing Americans’ data and location histories as part of federal investigations.

Data purchased by the government for leaks investigations could reveal reporters’ contacts with sources, with potentially devastating consequences for reporter-source confidentiality and press freedom. For instance, the government could buy location data for the devices of journalists and suspected leakers to determine if they visited the same locations at the same time. It could purchase internet records to determine if a suspected source visited a news outlet’s website or searched for a particular journalist.

The Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent exactly this kind of warrantless surveillance. But as the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Jake Laperruque noted recently, the government currently operates under a “spy first and ask forgiveness later mentality.”

Now, Congress has a rare opportunity to fix this. A new bill, the Government Surveillance Reform Act, would reauthorize and reform the government’s foreign intelligence surveillance powers under Section 702 of FISA. Crucially, it would prohibit law enforcement and intelligence agencies from buying sensitive information that otherwise would require a warrant.

Whether it’s being used for out-of-control immigration sweeps or to spy on journalists and their sources, the data broker loophole has become an insidious bypass to the Bill of Rights. The government shouldn’t be able to buy its way out of the Constitution. It’s time for Congress to close the data broker loophole.

freedom.press/issues/sources-a…

404 Media

2026-03-03 14:03:26

CBP Tapped Into the Online Advertising Ecosystem To Track Peoples’ Movements

📄
This article was primarily reported using public records requests. We are making it available to all readers as a public service. FOIA reporting can be expensive, please consider subscribing to 404 Media to support this work. Or send us a one time donation via our tip jar here.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) bought data from the online advertising ecosystem to track peoples’ precise movements over time, in a process that often involves siphoning data from ordinary apps like video games, dating services, and fitness trackers, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document obtained by 404 Media.

The document shows in stark terms the power, and potential risk, of online advertising data and how it can be leveraged by government agencies for surveillance purposes. The news comes after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) purchased similar tools that can monitor the movements of phones in entire neighbourhoods. ICE also recently said in public procurement documents it was interested in sourcing more “Ad Tech” data for its investigations. Following 404 Media’s revelation of that ICE purchase, on Tuesday a group of around 70 lawmakers urged the DHS oversight body to conduct a new investigation into ICE’s location data buying.

💡
Do you work at CBP, ICE, or a location data company? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co.

This sort of information is a “goldmine for tracking where every person is and what they read, watch, and listen to,” Johnny Ryan, director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) Enforce, which has closely followed the sale of advertising data, told 404 Media in an email.

This post is for subscribers only

Become a member to get access to all content
Subscribe now

CBP Tapped Into the Online Advertising Ecosystem To Track Peoples’ Movements

An internal DHS document obtained by 404 Media shows for the first time CBP used location data sourced from the online advertising industry to track phone locations. ICE has bought access to similar tools.

^{Joseph Cox (404 Media)}

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Washington, D.C., April 9, 2026 — Courtney Williams, a former Army employee, has been charged under the Espionage Act for blowing the whistle to journalist Seth Harp on sexual harassment and discrimination she experienced and witnessed during her military tenure. Harp cited Williams as a source in his 2025 book, “The Fort Bragg Cartel,” and an article in Politico Magazine.

The government’s complaint is vague about what classified information Williams disclosed and what, if any, risk it contends the information posed to national security, as well as on the tactics used to obtain information about Williams, Harp, and their communications.

The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern.

“Ask anybody who has read ‘The Fort Bragg Cartel’ which they think is the real threat to national security: Seth Harp’s sources, or the rampant corruption and criminality they enabled him to document. The administration knows the answer to that question, and that’s why it wants to punish whistleblowers and chill investigative reporting by bringing cases like this one.

“The charges also underscore why the Pentagon’s unconstitutional efforts to limit journalists’ access to everything except ‘authorized’ information are so outrageous. Does anyone think Pete Hegseth or his authorized PR flacks would have voluntarily disclosed these abuses to their briefing room of stenographers? Of course not. This is very clearly a retaliatory, anti-transparency prosecution and nothing more. The notion that an administration that casually posts genocide threats during its illegal wars is worried about national security risks from whistleblowers who expose sexual harassment is absurd.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/fpf-state…

For democracy to function, voices must be heard. For justice to prevail, those voices must also be protected. When both happen, transparency and trust grow together and help build healthy societies.

At its core, the idea is simple. People, no matter their position or power, should be able to report wrongdoing without fear. This could be corruption, misuse of authority, or risks to public safety.

Such individuals are known as whistleblowers.

A whistleblower is typically an employee, contractor, or insider who exposes misconduct, illegal activity, fraud, or risks to public health within an organization or government body. Yet in reality, power structures often silence those who speak up.

Raphaël Halet’s experience shows how difficult this can be. After exposing secret tax arrangements that benefited multinational corporations, he was convicted of a crime. He spent nearly a decade in legal battles before being cleared by the European Court of Human Rights in 2023.

Even more stark is the case of Daphne Caruana Galizia, who relied on whistleblowers to uncover systemic corruption in Malta. Her pursuit of the truth ultimately cost her life.

These cases reveal a hard truth. Without real protection, speaking up can come at a very high personal cost.

In response to this chilling effect, the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive was introduced. Its goal is to ensure that people who report wrongdoing are protected through secure reporting channels and safeguards against retaliation. Protecting whistleblowers is not only an ethical responsibility. It is essential for building systems that people can trust.

From Traditional Risks to the Age of AI

As the European Union moves deeper into the world of artificial intelligence, the role of whistleblowers becomes even more important.

The Directive was originally designed to address areas such as financial fraud, public safety, and environmental harm. But today, technology shapes decisions across hiring, healthcare, finance, and governance. Risks are no longer always visible or easy to detect.

This is where the EU AI Act comes in. It sets out rules for how AI systems should be designed, deployed, and monitored, especially in high-risk areas.

The relationship between the Directive and the AI Act is both practical and necessary. AI systems are often complex and difficult to understand from the outside. Regulators cannot always see how decisions are made. Insiders, however, can.

Developers, engineers, and contractors are often the first to notice problems such as biased algorithms, unsafe design, or misuse of AI tools. The Directive ensures that these individuals are protected when they speak up. The AI Act ensures that what they report is legally recognized and actionable.

By including AI-related problems and supporting safe ways to report them, the EU is doing more than just updating a law. The EU is reflecting on the fact that accountability today relies on protecting people who raise concerns from within organizations.

Together, these two frameworks create a strong foundation.

At this point, it is important to note that, from a policy perspective, integrating the Whistleblower Protection Directive and the EU AI Act offers hope for stronger compliance with rules and more transparent systems. But effective and uniform implementation requires deeper introspection.

According to the report adopted by the European Commission on 3 July, 2024, there remains a gap between what the law promises and what people experience in practice.

1. Retaliation Protection and Fundamental Rights

The Directive promises strong protection. Whistleblowers should not be dismissed, demoted, or harassed for speaking up. Employers must prove that any negative action is unrelated to the disclosure.

In reality, this protection is uneven.

Across EU Member States, enforcement varies. Some systems work well, while others are harder to access. This inconsistency weakens trust.

Retaliation is not always obvious. It can take the form of stalled careers, damaged reputations, or workplace isolation. These effects are difficult to prove but deeply felt.

Enforcement also remains a challenge. Authorities may lack resources or technical expertise, especially in complex AI cases. When retaliation is unlikely to be punished, protection risks becoming symbolic.

The Directive protects whistleblowers from being held responsible for acting in the public interest. But with AI, there are grey areas. Some risks might not break the law but can still cause harm. This makes people unsure if they are protected when they raise ethical issues.

At a deeper level, whistleblowing is tied to fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and access to information. When someone is silenced, the public loses access to important truths.

The AI Act recognizes this role, but in practice, retaliation is still often treated as a workplace issue rather than a broader democratic concern.

2. Scope in the Digital and Technology Sector

Extending protection to AI is a necessary step, but it also highlights new challenges.

From August 2026, violations of the AI Act will clearly fall within the Directive’s scope. This extends protection to employees, contractors, and self-employed individuals working with AI systems. Secure and anonymous reporting tools have also been introduced.

However, gaps remain.

AI risks can spread quickly. A flawed system can affect thousands of people at once. Bias can be repeated automatically without being noticed.

Many risks appear before any law is broken. For example, an AI system may rely on biased data or flawed testing. These issues may not be illegal, but they can still cause harm.

This creates uncertainty. Those who identify early risks are often unsure whether they are protected if they report them.

There are also limits on who is covered. Researchers, auditors, and civil society groups play an important role in identifying risks, but they are not always fully protected.

This creates a clear gap. Those best placed to detect problems are not always adequately protected when they speak up.

3. Transparency, Awareness, and Accessibility

Legal protection only works if people know about it and trust it.

The Directive requires organizations to establish mechanisms for reporting problems, but these systems are not always clear or easy to use. Some employees worry their identity will be revealed. Others do not know what happens after they report something. This uncertainty makes people less likely to speak up.

The AI Act introduces new tools that improve confidentiality and access. However, full protection for AI-related disclosures will only clearly apply from August 2026, leaving a period of uncertainty.

Non-traditional workers face additional challenges. Contractors, freelancers, and self-employed individuals are included in the law, but often lack formal reporting structures. Many depend on short-term contracts, which makes speaking up riskier.

Delays in implementing the Directive across Member States have also affected trust. Uneven adoption has led to confusion and reduced awareness.

When laws are not applied consistently, people are less likely to rely on them.

Conclusion: From Legal Framework to Real Protection

The European Union has created a strong legal framework by aligning the EU Whistleblower Protection Directive with the EU AI Act.

The challenge now is making it work in practice.

This requires consistent enforcement, stronger institutional support, and greater awareness. Protection should also cover new risks, not just clear legal violations. For example, AI systems might unintentionally discriminate in hiring, reinforce bias in healthcare, or make decisions that cannot be explained. These problems may not break the law, but they can still cause harm.

Reporting systems must be easy to access and trustworthy. Most importantly, retaliation must be treated as a serious issue that affects not just individuals’ but public trust.

In a world shaped by complex technologies, accountability often depends on individuals willing to speak up.

Protecting them is not just good policy. It is essential for the future.

europeanpirates.eu/speaking-up…