FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Washington, D.C., April 6, 2026 — President Donald Trump today threatened to jail unnamed journalists if they do not reveal their sources for reporting about the mission to rescue airmen who were shot down in Iran. Trump was quoted as saying, “We’re going to go to the media company that released it, and we’re going to say, ‘National security. Give it up or go to jail.’”

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

“Donald Trump has long harbored bizarre fantasies about having journalists arrested and even sexually assaulted in prison for refusing to burn their sources. But journalists don’t work for the government and their right to publish government leaks is protected by the First Amendment which, despite Trump’s efforts, remains the law of the land. It does not disappear whenever the words “national security” are uttered. To the extent that the government is allowed to withhold information, it’s up to the government to keep its secrets, not journalists.

“Confidential sources are the lifeblood of investigative journalism. Sources who come forward at great personal risk won’t do so if they don’t trust that their identities won’t be revealed, as Trump knows well from his days impersonating publicists to brag about himself to reporters. 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. It has nothing to do with national security.

“In fact, Trump’s hatred of the press runs so deep that, in his haste to lock up journalists for doing their jobs, he may have inadvertently threatened Israeli journalists and officials who were reportedly behind the story with prison. Anyone who for some reason considers taking Trump seriously next time he goes on a half-baked anti-press rant should remember that.

“Just a couple years ago, the PRESS Act — a bill to protect journalist-source confidentiality that would have expressly prohibited Trump from following through on threats like today’s — received bipartisan support, including from many of Trump’s allies, like Sens. Mike Lee and Lindsey Graham. It passed the House unanimously, with nine Republican co-sponsors. Any lawmaker who rightly supported that legislation or otherwise pontificated about press freedom and journalist-source confidentiality in the past but doesn’t speak out now is a free speech hypocrite.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/trumps-th…

Digital Fourth and QuitGPT will protest outside the offices of Rep. Katherine Clark in Malden to demand that she oppose extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), specifically Section 702. As long time proponents of ending illegal government surveillance, we support this protest.

FISA 702 permits warrantless government access to people’s communications, including US persons; it permits warrantless acquisition of people’s commercially available information (location data, browsing data, demographic and other sensitive data), and, because AI is new, a law passed in 2008 doesn’t address the problem of AI vastly accelerating the government’s power to ingest data and surface real or hallucinated “insights” on who’s a threat.

In 2013, Rep. Clark explicitly pledged to support “an individualized warrant based on probable cause before the government can search someone’s email.” She turned her back on that pledge and has whipped Democrats to support expanded warrantless surveillance in 2024.

Come out to help them! The protest will be in front of her district office at 157 Pleasant St #4, Malden, MA 02148. It is a short walk from the Malden Center Orange Line MBTA stop, the Jackson Street Parking Garage and Pleasant Street Parking Lot.

They will have signs if you don’t have your own. Allies have already successfully protested surveillance apologist Jim Himes in Connecticut. If you’d like a flyer to use, it’s here:

You can find more information at Digital 4th’s protest page.

masspirates.org/blog/2026/04/0…

ICYMI

The Pirate National Committee did not meet yesterday due to the holiday, and will not meet next week due to Orthodox Easter. That doesn’t mean we don’t have updates!

All Hands for a Free Future – Last night, our partners in our coalition “All Hands for a Free Future,” the U.S. Transhumanist Party, decided to endorse Drew Bingaman in his quest for PA 108th District. You can find that endorsement here. Long live the Handies!

Arizona – Blase Henry gave a speech during No Kings in Arizona. Check that out here!

Nevada – If you haven’t been following Hunter Rand’s Facebook page, you might have missed his commitment to transparency, his promotion of local businesses and, the sign you know he’s threatening the Powers That Be, his sign got torn down. Now, you know all of us here hate asking for money, but those yard signs aren’t free. If you felt so compelled to assist Hunter’s campaign, feel free to make a donation of an amount from with you’re comfortable departing.

We’d never suggest donating money normally, but Hunter Rand is a Pirate through and through and could use a hand.

Ohio – Tim Grady’s gubernatorial campaign recently put out his “Ohio Vision” plan, allowing supporters to really get a feel for what the campaign is all about.

Pennsylvania – Aside from the endorsement, Drew is still seeking volunteers to assist with signature collection in Pennsylvania so he can appear on the ballot come November. If you’re looking to volunteer, please sign up!

Pete Karas – Pete Karas, Green Party candidate for Wisconsin Secretary of State, recently joined us on Talk the Plank! to discuss his campaign. That episode can be found here. Pete Karas will return on April 19th, during our own return Pirate National Committee meeting, to go over endorsements.

Pirate National Conference – Our 2026 Pirate National Conference[…] Hoist the Colour and Spill the Tea (20 Years a Pirate!) will be live from Boston, MA from June 6th-7th. The conference will also be hybrid so those seeking to attend but unable to join in-person can do so over Jitsi. Check out more info here!

uspirates.org/icymi-updates-fr…

Have you ever felt that European policy-making exists in a bubble? It seems far removed from your daily life. You scroll through news about new digital laws. The technical jargon makes you feel overwhelmed and clueless. At times, you tend to ask yourself: “This affects me, but what can I do?”

You’re not alone. For too long, people have seen digital policies change their online lives. Many feel powerless over decisions made in Brussels. But there’s hope. A tool is gaining strength. It’s called collective redress, and it could give us the power to push back against Big Tech.

The Digital Fairness Act is a Concern for Individual Privacy

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: the Digital Fairness Act. On paper, this legislation sounds promising. Who could argue against “fairness” in the digital space? Some elements, such as the focus on banning design techniques that trick users, are a great step forward. This restriction is aimed at preventing coercion of users, turning them into active users of their own experience.

But if you scratch the surface, you’ll find policies that should make any privacy-conscious citizen concerned.

The Act has concerning elements that could harm user autonomy and digital rights. For instance, it may introduce rules on dark patterns, addictive design, and minors’ protection that the GDPR, DSA, DMA, and existing Consumer Directives already cover. This legislation impacts individual freedoms by adding regulations that may enable excessive surveillance. The unclear definition of “harmful content” could also be used for censorship, tracking whistleblowers, and political opponents.

For the Pirate Party and digital rights advocates in Europe, this is concerning. We have fought hard for privacy and digital freedoms. It’s alarming to see them erode under “fairness” and “safety.” Policies should focus on enforcing and simplifying existing laws. We shouldn’t create new ones that could weaken end-to-end encryption and other privacy settings.

What can we do? This is where collective redress comes in. It changes how European citizens confront corporate wrongs and deal with digital policies.

Collective redress in the EU began with a 2013 European Commission recommendation. It gained strength with the Representative Actions Directive, which took effect in 2020. Member states had to implement it by December 2022. This idea was inspired by the American class action system. In these lawsuits, many individuals can unite to challenge powerful corporations and harmful legislation.

The EU version has its own approach. Unlike the American model, where lawyers often lead cases for large fees, the European approach focuses on qualified groups. These include consumer protection organizations, NGOs, and advocacy groups that represent affected citizens.

How Does Collective Redress Work?

Collective redress is powerful. There is no need to be a legal expert or a lobbyist to join in. When a qualified group spots a violation of consumer rights or EU law affecting many people, they can start a representative action. This allows one lawsuit to tackle the issues faced by hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people.

There are two main types:

• injunctive relief (stopping harmful practices);
• compensatory relief (seeking damages for harm).

Member states can implement these flexibly.

The core principle stays the same: bringing individual claims together into a strong collective voice.

While the process may begin with a qualified group collecting evidence of widespread harm, this is not a necessary condition; action may also be grounded in generalized or abstract adverse effects, in line with the precautionary principle. Then, a court action can be filed on behalf of all affected parties. Importantly, under the EU model, individuals don’t need to opt in right from the start. Instead, they are represented automatically. However, they can choose to opt out if they wish. This system is crucial. It stops companies from avoiding accountability just because many people are too busy or intimidated to join a lawsuit.

Collective Redress Meets Digital Rights

Now, let’s connect the dots. How does collective redress help us challenge the problematic elements of the Digital Fairness Act? There are three main aspects.

• Accountability: When platforms use surveillance or data collection required by the Act, qualified digital rights groups can challenge these actions. They can act if these actions violate key rights under GDPR, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or other EU laws. One lawsuit might represent millions of users whose privacy has been harmed.
• Power dynamics change: Big Tech and governments depend on citizens feeling too overwhelmed to respond. Now, they face organized and well-funded opposition. Digital rights NGOs can use collective redress to challenge both the platforms and the use of problematic legal provisions.
• Precedence-setting: A successful collective redress action under the Digital Fairness Act would create legal standards. This makes it tougher for other platforms to use similar measures. It also shows lawmakers that some rules can’t be enforced without violating basic rights.

The mix of collective redress mechanisms and the flawed Digital Fairness Act offers a unique chance. We are not just powerless individuals against big corporations and bureaucracy. We are a united group: organized, legally strong, and ready to protect our digital rights.

The European Pirates stand ready to support and coordinate these efforts. Because in the digital age, our privacy and our freedoms shouldn’t be decided without us.

This piece was originally written by: Hugo Dabas (www.echoesunwritten.com)

europeanpirates.eu/collective-…

April 3

Tomorrow, Saturday, April 4th at 2pmET/1pmCT, the United States Pirate Party’s official podcast “Talk the Plank!” returns featuring guest Pete Karas.

Pete is running for Wisconsin Secretary of State under the Green Party ticket.

He is no stranger to elected office; Pete Karas is a former Racine city council member, and was elected to such as a Green.

Per his website, “Pete has never voted for a Democrat or a Republican for president. He believes the two-party system is not just broken but fundamentally anti-democratic. Both major parties rely on the same corporate donors and protect the same political establishment. They claim to oppose each other, but behind the scenes, they maintain a system that limits real voter choice and blocks third-party candidates from gaining ground. Pete knows voters deserve more voices and more choices.”

In an era where minor parties and independents are especially kept from even appearing on the ballot, someone like Pete Karas fighting against the practice, raising awareness of this issue and giving people a choice away from the duopoly’s grip is especially important.

Pete Karas recently appeared on the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s Virtual Enlightenment Salon. Check out Pete sitting down with our fellow All Hands for a Free Future coalition members here. Long live the Handies!

Tune in tomorrow to see more from Pete! Remember to check out his platform, check in on his latest updates, and never forget that breaking from the duopoly is possible.

uspirates.org/talk-the-plank-r…

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Court wins against Trump administration censorship keep stacking up. But that’s certainly not stopping them from trying. Read on for more on the week’s press freedom news.

For Brendan Carr, localism is a red herring

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr loves to talk about localism — the idea that broadcasters should serve the needs and interests of their own communities — whenever he’s confronted about his abuse of the FCC’s powers to try to censor the news.

But as we saw last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he touted President Donald Trump’s “wins” against the media, localism is a red herring. As Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern wrote in The Intercept, without exception, Carr’s threats and investigations against broadcast news outlets involve segments on national news that offend Trump. The only time he involves himself with local news is to help consolidate ownership in the hands of conglomerates known for decimating local newsrooms.

• Read more

Centralizing data is about surveillance, not security

FPF Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper joined National Public Radio’s “1A” program to talk about our lawsuit to find out how Trump’s 2025 executive order to eliminate “information silos” is really being used to create a massive centralized database to monitor the activities of Americans.

It’s sure to be abused by nefarious actors both inside and outside the government.

• Listen here

NPR, PBS ruling explains why all Trump censorship is illegal

A judge struck down the administration’s defunding of NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service as unconstitutional retaliation for airing content that displeased it.

We explained in a statement that the court is exactly right — it’s well established that the government can’t condition benefits on censorship it can’t achieve directly. That goes for PBS and NPR, but it also goes for Carr shaking down broadcast licensees, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denying access to reporters who don’t follow his unconstitutional rules, and more.

• Read more

News isn’t contraband

What if the Nixon administration hadn’t asked a court to bar The New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, resulting in the seminal Supreme Court ruling further strengthening the law against “prior restraints”?

Rather than seeking such an extreme judicial remedy, what if President Richard Nixon had federal agents barge into the Times’ and Post’s newsrooms, seize the Pentagon Papers and all other national defense documents in the outlets’ custody, and refuse to return any of them, claiming they’re all criminal “contraband”?

Stern explained that a legal theory floated by the Biden administration in prosecuting journalist Tim Burke and now adopted by the Trump administration could lead to Trump or others censoring reporters by simply taking their stuff, without involving the courts at all.

• Read more

Reform Section 702 of FISA

Section 702 of FISA, the surveillance law that allows the FBI and intelligence agencies to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant, is up for renewal in Congress. The law has been repeatedly misused, including to monitor journalists and activists. Yet the Trump administration and some Democratic lawmakers are pushing Congress to reauthorize Section 702 without significant reforms. You can tell Congress to reject that effort with our action center.

We wrote about our recent conversation with four experts: Dell Cameron, an investigative reporter for Wired who covers privacy and national security; John Dickas, Sen. Ron Wyden’s deputy chief of staff; Trevor Timm, executive director of FPF; and Sean Vitka, executive director of Demand Progress.

• Read more

What we're reading

Israeli strike on media car targets, kills 3 journalists in south Lebanon

Committee to Protect Journalists
“We have seen a disturbing pattern in this war and in the decades prior of Israel accusing journalists of being active combatants and terrorists without providing credible evidence. Journalists are not legitimate targets, regardless of the outlet they work for.”

A US journalist was kidnapped in Baghdad and a search is underway

Associated Press
The State Department should do everything in its power to secure the release of journalist Shelly Kittleson without escalating the illegal war that may have endangered her in the first place.

Court awards journalist $75K in damages for unlawful arrest

U.S. Press Freedom Tracker
The ruling confirms that authorities violated Texas journalist Justin Pulliam’s constitutional rights when they arrested him and kicked him out of a press conference. Read our 2024 interview with Pulliam.

Ask a security trainer: What about NSA surveillance?

FPF digital security team
There are steps you can take to keep your communications private even if Congress renews Section 702. Our latest “Ask a security trainer” advice column offers technology measures you can implement now. You can also read about how VPN use may affect your privacy in our latest digital security newsletter.

Trump administration’s escalating attacks on media raise concerns about trust in media, self-censorship

The Fulcrum
“Nobody knows what routine conduct the administration is going to figure out a way to go after next,” Stern said. “The only discernible rule that you can figure out if you’re a journalist trying not to be targeted by this administration is to self-censor.”

Exposing financial censorship: Rainey Reitman on her new book, ‘Transaction Denied’

The Dissenter
Kevin Gosztola interviewed FPF Board Chair Rainey Reitman about her new book on how journalists are targeted for financial censorship.

freedom.press/issues/brendan-c…