The White House has released its very own mobile app. Now, instead of your information being harvested indirectly through obscure third-party trackers, you can simply hand it over directly. Is this just an April Fool´s Day joke? Unfortunately, it is not! Read all about it: whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/0…

The app promises updates straight from Trump himself. For that extra dystopian touch, you can also use the app to submit tips to immigration authorities with their get in touch feature. It also requests extensive permissions, which ensures that you can and will be tracked as thanks for your participation. The US government is essentially trying to skip the social media middleman, so they can more directly invade your privacy.

“So if this feels absurd, that’s kind of our point.”

Not only companies, but also the most powerful government in the world, actively manipulates users to spy on them and convert ordinary citizens into intelligence agents. Everyday feels like April Fools Day.

————————————————————————————————–

The following message was prepared by members of the PPI Board. It does not necessarily reflect the views of all PPI members, but we hope it does. If any of our members have competing ideas about this issue or any other issue that they would like us to broadcast, please share them with us. We are happy to broadcast a variety of ideological opinions and diverse issues. Our goal is to create positive communication to solve problems.

pp-international.net/2026/03/a…

From the United States Pirate Party:

Join us in Boston for the 2026 National Party Conference from Saturday, June 6th to Sunday, June 7th!

The first day will include a visit to the USS Constitution and talks on a variety of topics of interest to Pirates. Conference talks will be held in the Minehan Meeting Room, 2-6pm at the Residence Inn by Marriott Boston Harbor on Tudor Wharf, 34-44 Charles River Ave, Boston, MA 02129.

The second day will include activities in Boston learning about Boston’s past and ongoing fight for freedom as well as family-friendly activities.

We will post a signup page for attendees and speakers soon. Find out more at the United States Pirate Party 2026 National Conference page.

Schedule

Saturday, June 6th

• 10-10:30am: Gather outside the USS Constitution
• 10:30-11am: Kick off speech outside the USS Constitution
• 11am-noon: Visit the USS Constitution
• noon-1:45pm: Lunch
• 2pm-6pm: Talks

Sunday, June 7th

Freedom Trail Track

• 10am-noon: Walk the Freedom Trail mapping surveillance cameras
• noon-2pm: lunch near the Aquarium
• 2pm-4pm: Walk the Freedom Trail mapping surveillance cameras

Family Friendly Track

• 10am-noon: Duckboat tour near the New England Aquarium
• noon-2pm: lunch
• 2pm+: Visit the New England Aquarium

masspirates.org/blog/2026/03/3…

ICYMI

Arizona – Blase Henry had the opportunity to speak at a No Kings rally over the weekend. You can find that speech here!

Michigan – While not on the precipice of a becoming PNC member state, there appears to be a growing presence in Michigan. If you are from Michigan and seeking to get involved, this might be the most opportune time to do so. Join our Discord or shoot us an email!

Nevada – Hunter Rand has been out and about campaigning and could use your support! Visit his website and learn how you can assist.

Ohio – Tim Grady, independent candidate for Governor of Ohio and Pirate Party endorsee, has been picking up endorsement in his gubernatorial race. Like Hunter, you can visit his website and learn how you can help the campaign!

Pennsylvania – Drew Bingaman (who is looking for volunteers) also attended his local No Kings rally. One thing of note, according to Drew, was the lack of Trump supporter counter protests. The Bingaman campaign actually has recently picked up more volunteers, having begun working with another local independent candidate in what was called “a bit of a coalition.”

Pan-American Day – In lieu of open Sunday meetings during our hiatus, we will have two open meetings. Pan-American Day, April 14th, will be the date for one of the meetings. Another meeting is TBA.

Pirate National Committee – We will not be meeting again on Sunday until April 19th, due to the two Easter Sundays. As previously mentioned, April 14th will be the date of one open meeting with a second meeting TBA.

Pirate National Conference – Folks, we are incredibly excited to post our Pirate National Conference’s official name. In 2022, we chose the theme “Pirates Reborn.” The next year, we went with “Piratey McPirateface.” Come 2024, the first time in over a decade the conference was held in-person, we picked “Steal This Conference!” Last year, it was “Run for Something.”

The 2026 Pirate National Conference: Piratey McPirateface, of the House of Supreme, Heir to the Crown of the United States of America, Held By His Father Vermin Supreme, and Sole Heir to the Kingdom of Libertalia, By the Grace of God, King of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Dalmatia, of Croatia, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Mallorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Jaén, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of the Canary Islands, of the East and West Indies, of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, of Athens and Neopatria; Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Barcelona, of Roussillon, and of Cerdanya; Marquess of Oristano and Count of Goceano, Duke of Sealand, Mayor of Des Moines, Mr. Florida 1999, Reborn, Runs for Something to Spill This Tea and Hoist the Colours Over the Stolen Pirate National Conference of 2024, aka Hoist the Colours and Spill the Tea

20 YEARS A PIRATE!

If you are wishing to attend, you can find out all the information you are looking for here.

If you wanted to watch last night’s meeting, you can find it here. Come find out how we landed on that name.

uspirates.org/icymi-updates-fr…

Join us in Boston for the 2026 National Party Conference from Saturday, June 6th to Sunday, June 7th! It is our 20th anniversary!

The first day will include a visit to the USS Constitution and talks on a variety of topics of interest to Pirates. Conference talks will be held in the Minehan Meeting Room, 2-6pm at the Residence Inn by Marriott Boston Harbor on Tudor Wharf, 34-44 Charles River Ave, Boston, MA 02129.

The second day will include activities in Boston learning about Boston’s past and ongoing fight for freedom as well as family-friendly activities.

We will post a signup page for attendees and speakers soon. Find out more at our 2026 National Conference page.

Schedule

Saturday, June 6th

• 10-10:30am: Gather outside the USS Constitution
• 10:30-11am: Kick off speech outside the USS Constitution
• 11am-noon: Visit the USS Constitution
• noon-1:45pm: Lunch
• 2pm-6pm: Talks

Sunday, June 7th

Freedom Trail Track

• 10am-noon: Walk the Freedom Trail mapping surveillance cameras
• noon-2pm: lunch near the Aquarium
• 2pm-4pm: Walk the Freedom Trail mapping surveillance cameras

Family Friendly Track

• 10am-noon: Duckboat tour near the New England Aquarium
• noon-2pm: lunch
• 2pm+: Visit the New England Aquarium

uspirates.org/2026-national-co…

As of March 2026, the European Commission has invited input on the Google Android Developer Verification requirements to monitor Google’s compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). With the first official review of the DMA due by 3 May 2026, the Commission has launched a public consultation, a “Call for Evidence,” to evaluate how this requirement impacts fair and contestable digital markets.

In response, the European Pirate Party has submitted a formal contribution to the Commission’s review, raising concerns about the implications of Google’s new requirements. The Party has also joined 37 organisations in signing an open letter, published by the F-Droid team in February 2026, calling on Google to reconsider an initiative that risks turning Android into a centrally controlled ecosystem rather than an open platform for all developers.

An Overview of the new regulation/requirement:

The Android developer verification requirement is a new mandate rolled out by Google that requires app developers, including those distributing apps outside the Google Play Store, to verify their identities to remain installable on Android devices.

Google has justified this move as a security measure, comparing it to identity checks in high-risk environments. The aim, according to the company, is to prevent bad actors from anonymously distributing malware or scams.

Core Requirements:

• Identity Verification:
  
  • Individuals: Must provide a legal name, address, email, phone number, and a government-issued photo ID (passport or driver’s license).
  • Organizations: Must provide their legal business name, physical address, and a D-U-N-S number.

  
  

• App Registration: Developers must register their app’s “package name” (e.g., com.example.app) and use their signing keys to prove they are the rightful owners of the software.
• Cost: A one-time $25 registration fee for a Google Play Console account is required for verification. There are no additional or recurring fees involved.

Key Timelines:

• March 2026 – Verification portals open globally for developers.
• September 2026 – The regulation will be enforced in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. Unverified apps will be blocked from installation.
• 2027 and beyond – The regulation will be rolled out globally.

What do critics say?

A coalition of more than 37 civil society groups, digital rights activists, and technology companies has launched the “Keep Android Open” campaign. F-Droid, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), Article 19, Fastmail, Vivaldi, etc., are among the participants, along with the European Pirate Party.

The central concern raised by these organisations is that mandatory verification risks turning Android into a controlled ecosystem.

Key Concerns:

• Destruction of “True” Sideloading: Critics argue that requiring registration for apps distributed outside the Play Store undermines true independent sideloading. While Google maintains that sideloading remains possible, opponents say it will be subject to friction and warnings that discourage users.
• Privacy and Surveillance Risks: Mandatory registration requires developers to provide Google with legal names, home addresses, and government-issued IDs. Critics argue this creates a global database of all Android developers, even those who intentionally avoid Google’s ecosystem for privacy reasons.
• Barrier to Entry for Open Source (FOSS): Many free and open-source projects rely on anonymous volunteer contributors who may be unwilling or unable to provide government IDs or pay the $25 registration fee. F-Droid has explicitly stated that this requirement could be “existential” for its project.
• Anti-Competitive “Gatekeeping”: Opponents contend that Google is using security as a pretext to maintain its monopoly. By requiring verification, Google can collect business intelligence on all Android development activity, even apps that compete directly with Google’s own services.
• Arbitrary Enforcement and “Account Kill-Switch”: There are fears that Google could use this system to arbitrarily block developers or revoke their “verified” status without a clear appeals process, effectively turning off their apps across all devices.
• Economic Impact on Emerging Markets: While $25 may be minor in some regions, critics note that it is a significant barrier for students and hobbyists in developing countries.

European Pirate Party’s Perspective:

As an advocate of digital rights, internet freedom, and online privacy, the European Pirate Party’s motivation to respond to the Commission’s call and join the “Keep Android Open” campaign stems from a unique perspective. The experts view the issue as an intersection of three points:

1. Free software and the open ecosystem
2. Civil liberties and the right to privacy
3. Competition law under the Digital Markets Act

Each dimension reinforces each other and calls for regulatory intervention.

Building on these concerns, the Party’s submission to the European Commission outlines how the verification requirement risks undermining the principles the DMA is designed to protect. It calls for proportionate and transparent measures that ensure security without restricting innovation, limiting anonymity, or distorting competition.

For the complete analysis and supporting recommendations, please refer to the attached document:

EPP Google Android Developer Verification policy paperDownload

​

europeanpirates.eu/european-pi…

Section 702 of FISA, the controversial 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 changes.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) recently spoke to four experts about Section 702: 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.

We talked about how surveillance affects freedom of the press and other First Amendment rights, and how Section 702 should be reformed to help limit the government’s power to spy on Americans.

youtube.com/embed/GMP8hnBI3iA?…

Vitka emphasized how the government has overreached using Section 702 powers, highlighting examples of spying on Black Lives Matter protesters, elected officials, and judges. “When the executive branch gets to decide who they’re spying on and at what degree they can spy on them on its own, they inevitably do too much,” Vitka said. “They do things that chill our speech.”

Vitka said that Congress should not reauthorize the law without requiring a warrant before the government can search data collected under Section 702 for Americans’ communications. Congress must also close the “data broker loophole,” Vitka said, which currently allows the FBI and other agencies to buy data on Americans that they otherwise would require a warrant to access.

Timm, too, explained that Section 702 surveillance can be abused, including in ways that impact the press. “A journalist’s lifeblood is their ability to keep their sources safe and confidential from government intrusion or any other control, any other intrusion,” Timm explained. “If the government is able to vacuum up, for example, all of a journalist’s international contacts and communications, they would essentially be able to find out who all their international sources are, despite the fact that a journalist was completely complying with the law and just doing their job as they are allowed to under the First Amendment.”

Cameron highlighted his reporting about the government’s systemic noncompliance with the law when it comes to Section 702, noting that even the FISA court that oversees the program has cited the FBI for “persistent and widespread violations” in the past. Meanwhile, internal mechanisms intended to monitor the FBI and other agencies have been dismantled, Cameron said.

A lack of transparency and secret government interpretations of the law also make it difficult for journalists to report on it, and for lawmakers and the public to understand how Section 702 is being used.

Cameron noted his recent report for Wired on a letter from lawmakers, including Wyden, to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, asking her to clarify whether Americans using virtual private networks are vulnerable to spying under Section 702. It’s important to remember, Cameron said, that Section 702 is “being used in ways that we can’t really calculate, can’t understand, maybe never will.”

Dickas discussed Wyden’s efforts to protect Americans’ privacy and call attention to secret executive branch interpretations of Section 702 that have expanded the government’s surveillance power in the past. “Senator Wyden agrees that there is value to American’s national security in Section 702, but he’s also arguing pretty vociferously that it’s possible to make reforms to protect the privacy of Americans that do not diminish Section 702 national security value,” Dickas said.

A bill co-sponsored by Wyden and a bipartisan group of senators, the Government Surveillance Reform Act, would reauthorize Section 702 while also making urgently needed reforms to the law, Dickas explained.

Watch the full conversation here.

You can tell your lawmaker not to renew Section 702 without including privacy reforms for Americans using FPF’s action center.

You can tell Congress to close the data broker loophole and stop AI-powered mass surveillance here.

freedom.press/issues/protectin…

Prior restraints, or court orders prohibiting journalists from publishing news, are the “most serious” violations of the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court. The Pentagon Papers case famously held that gagging the press is unconstitutional, even when the government claimed that The New York Times and The Washington Post reporting the secret history of its Vietnam War lies leaked by Daniel Ellsberg would damage national security.

But what if the Nixon administration had gone about it differently? Rather than seeking such an extreme judicial remedy, it could have had federal agents barge into the Times’ and Post’s newsrooms, seize the Pentagon Papers and all other national defense documents in the papers’ custody, whether from Ellsberg or another source entirely, and refuse to return any of them, claiming they’re all criminal “contraband” because the newspapers had violated the Espionage Act of 1917 by obtaining them.

There would have been no need for a prior restraint — no matter what your legal rights might be on paper, you can’t publish what you don’t possess. As one federal appellate court said in 2015, “The government need not ban a protected activity … if it can simply proceed upstream and dam the source.”

Over half a century after the Pentagon Papers, the federal government apparently believes it can do just that. In January, it raided the home of Post journalist Hannah Natanson, purportedly to investigate whether one of her alleged sources — government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones — broke the law by leaking documents to her.

Even a targeted operation would have been problematic enough — it violates federal law for the government to seize journalists’ materials to investigate their sources’ alleged crimes. That law, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, arose from the seizure of a few pictures taken by reporters for The Stanford Daily of a confrontation between police and protesters.

That raid seems quaint now. In Natanson’s case, the government seized terabytes of data, most of which had nothing to do with that investigation. It’s claiming that it doesn’t have to return any classified information found in her files because it’s “contraband,” like drug money or illegal guns at a crime scene.

Although it hasn’t charged Natanson with a crime, the Department of Justice contends that she, along with her source, violated the Espionage Act by possessing classified documents (the Espionage Act is actually not even limited to classified records, since the classification system didn’t exist yet when it was enacted).

Next time federal prosecutors attempt their new censorship workaround, the judiciary needs to send a strong signal that news isn’t an ill-gotten gain.

Prosecutors also cited the alleged Espionage Act violation to excuse their noncompliance with the Privacy Protection Act, although they didn’t bother to share that reasoning with the judge until he called them out for their omission.

The Department of War (it’s earned the name at this point) has taken it even further, claiming it’s criminal solicitation not only for journalists to obtain leaked documents but to merely ask questions to Pentagon personnel who aren’t officially authorized to answer them.

District Judge Paul Friedman struck down the Pentagon’s press restrictions as unconstitutional March 20 in a lawsuit brought by the Times, but the Pentagon reissued them with hardly any substantive changes and promised to appeal the ruling against the original policy. Does that mean they think they can seize interview recordings from journalists, label them fruits of a forbidden tree, and keep them forever?

Of course, people should be outraged at the Trump administration for all of this. But, unfortunately, this contraband nonsense didn’t originate with Trump.

During the Biden administration, federal prosecutors floated a strikingly similar theory in the prosecution of Tim Burke, a Florida journalist, known for breaking the Manti Teʻo catfishing story back in 2013, who was charged with computer crimes for obtaining unaired outtakes of antisemitic rants by Ye (formerly Kanye West) during an interview with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The most serious charges against Burke have been dismissed, but the government is appealing.

The government argued in Burke’s case, like in Natanson’s, that other materials having nothing to do with the investigation at hand could be permanently confiscated from Burke because they may constitute “contraband” from unspecified computer crimes. No judge has determined that any illegality occurred in either case, but both journalists have been restrained from pursuing countless stories because they simply don’t have their work.

In Natanson’s case, the notion that a journalist or publisher can violate the Espionage Act by obtaining government secrets in the first place is a red line that many administrations decided against crossing in prior decades. It was legitimized by the Biden administration’s extraction of a plea deal from WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange over his publication in 2010 of documents that exposed war crimes and abuses during the Iraq War, despite warnings from leading newspapers, law professors, and other First Amendment advocates.

And now that reasoning is apparently being extended to not just obtaining leaked documents but asking questions to anyone but a PR flack.

This contraband nonsense didn’t originate with Trump.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib has introduced an excellent bill to rein in Espionage Act abuses — named after Ellsberg, whose own prosecution was thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct. And Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Becca Balint have new legislation to plug the holes in the Privacy Protection Act that allow illegal raids to slip through the cracks of the judicial system. But things are moving quickly. The bills are unlikely to advance before the administration does more damage.

The Pentagon Papers case stands for the proposition that the government cannot suppress the publication of truthful information of public concern, even when it would very much like to. The contraband theory is an attempt to achieve the suppression indirectly — by redefining journalists’ work product as something illicit that the government can confiscate.

Courts shouldn’t let it get that far. In the Natanson case, Judge William Porter in February rightly referred to the seizure of Natanson’s materials as a prior restraint. But he didn’t order them immediately returned, and he didn’t sanction federal prosecutors for making such absurd legal arguments (or for failing to disclose the Privacy Protection Act).

Next time federal prosecutors attempt their new censorship workaround, the judiciary needs to send a strong signal that news isn’t an ill-gotten gain and prior restraints in any form won’t be tolerated in this nation’s courthouses.

Judge Friedman will soon have the opportunity to do just that. The Times has filed a motion to compel the Pentagon to comply with his order to stop retaliating against journalists for doing their jobs, referring to the government’s conduct as “the definition of contempt.” Friedman should show the government the definition of sanctions.

freedom.press/issues/the-doj-t…

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

A new bill would put some bite behind the federal law that’s supposed to protect journalists from search warrants. Tell your member of Congress to support it, and while you’re at it, tell them to pass the Daniel Ellsberg Act, too. Then keep reading for more press freedom news, including the latest on how petty Pete Hegseth is recycling old ideas to stifle the Pentagon press corps.

Tell Congress to stop newsroom raids

Just a few months ago, the government raided Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home based on a search warrant that failed to mention the Privacy Protection Act, the federal law that’s supposed to stop most search warrants targeting journalists.

Natanson’s case isn’t the only one involving a journalist where the government has conveniently omitted the law. A new bill introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Becca Balint could help end this troubling pattern.

The Wyden-Balint bill is needed now more than ever, and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) is proud to endorse it. Read about why the bill is necessary and tell your member of Congress to support it today.

• Take action

Meet the new Pentagon press policy, same as the old Pentagon press policy

After a federal judge struck down the Pentagon’s media access policy last week in litigation brought by The New York Times, the Defense Department enacted a new policy that retains the same core constitutional problem as the original one — it allows the government to deny reporters press passes merely for asking questions. The Times has moved to compel the Pentagon to follow the judge’s ruling, calling its conduct “the definition of contempt.”

We said in a statement, “It’s past time that this administration, its officials, and its lawyers start facing real consequences for ignoring court orders and the Constitution.”

• Read our statement

Pentagon claims asking questions is a crime

In 2017, rogue police officers in Laredo, Texas, arrested citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal for asking government officials questions. They were rightly ridiculed, although the Supreme Court this week declined to review an awful ruling preventing Villarreal from suing them. But they were also apparently ahead of their time.

As FPF Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern explained in The Intercept, it’s now the federal government’s position that asking “unauthorized” questions is illegal. Court filings imply that the Pentagon believes journalists who ask unauthorized questions are not only subject to revocation of press passes, but to criminal prosecution.

• Read the article

FOIA sets a floor for transparency, not a ceiling

Our Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, Lauren Harper, wrote for MS Now about the Pentagon’s insulting justification for its restrictions on newsgathering: That journalists have “legitimate” alternatives, like Freedom of Information Act requests.

As Harper explains, FOIA is broken across the government, but especially at the Pentagon, and even more so during this administration. Even when it’s working, the law is intended to guarantee a minimum level of transparency, not be an exclusive means of obtaining news.

• Read more

Government thinks First Amendment isn’t for immigrant journalists

The government made an alarming claim in response to Nashville journalist Estefany Rodríguez’s contention that her immigration arrest was in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights: That she doesn’t have any.

FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus explains that the reason that sounds so obviously wrong is because it is.

• Read more

Watch our recent events

We participated in two important discussions this week, and you can check out both online if you missed them. Harper moderated a panel hosted by the Ellsberg Initiative for Peace and Democracy on the Trump administration’s escalating attacks against press freedom. And FPF hosted a conversation about current efforts to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without reforms to prevent illegal surveillance of communications by Americans, including journalists.

You can also use our action center to tell Congress not to renew Section 702 without reforms. And you can find the rest of our panel discussions, as well as our short videos about press freedom topics in the news, on our YouTube page.

• Watch more

What we’re reading

Trump isn’t just bullying journalists. He’s subverting the First Amendment

Truthout
“Any Republican official who is vocal about Biden’s jawboning but silent now is someone who probably doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously when it comes to principled application of the First Amendment,” Stern said.

Kara Swisher would cut ties with CNN if Ellisons took control

The Hollywood Reporter
“They have no interest in journalism,” Swisher said, “I’m not working for you hacks.” Paramount will tank CNN to appease Trump, just like it did CBS. Its shareholders should be objecting loudly to further public humiliation and devaluation.

Who tells the story? And whose story is it? Values and practices when reporting on ICE

Transom
When Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other federal agencies ignore press rights, editors, unions, and lawyers must be willing to step up to support journalists, FPF’s Deputy Director of Advocacy Adam Rose explained. “If you’re prevented from telling the story, then you are the story,” he said.

Trump leverages Army-Navy game to ramp up pressure on broadcasters

Politico
Maybe station owners who didn’t want to rock the boat when Trump and Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr threatened to censor the news will grow a spine now that they’re messing with real money.

freedom.press/issues/tell-cong…