FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

A federal judge ruled today that Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk must be released from U.S. custody. Öztürk was abducted by federal immigration authorities outside her home in Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25.

The only known evidence for deporting Öztürk was her co-authorship of an op-ed critical of Israel in a Tufts student newspaper, and Judge William Sessions III confirmed it “literally is the case there is no evidence here … absent consideration of the op-ed.”

Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), commented that “it is unfathomable that in the United States legal system, it takes 45 days for a judge to rule that people can’t be put behind bars for writing op-eds the government doesn’t like. Without a system committed to its principles, the Constitution is just words on paper, and they don’t mean much if this can happen here. Öztürk’s abduction and imprisonment is one of the most shameful chapters in First Amendment history. We’re thankful that Judge Sessions moved it one step closer to an end and we call on the Trump administration to release Öztürk immediately and not attempt to stall with any further authoritarian nonsense.”

Lauren Harper, FPF’s Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, noted that the government has kept secret a memorandum, prepared before Öztürk’s detention and reported in The Washington Post, showing there were not sufficient grounds for revoking Öztürk’s visa. Harper has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the memorandum.

“The government is not allowed to hide information to prevent embarrassment or conceal wrongdoing, which is exactly what’s happening here, and Ms. Öztürk and her lawyers deserve to have access to information that could aid in her legal case. If the administration wants to not have to disclose embarrassing information about its actions, it should stop making up reasons to deport people,” said Harper.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/order-for…

Dear friend of press freedom,

A judge ordered Rümeysa Öztürk’s release today. But it's still the 45th day she spent incarcerated by the U.S. government for writing an op-ed. Hopefully this shameful chapter in First Amendment history is nearing a close. Other press freedom news below.

Memo obtained by FPF shows DOJ’s new anti-press policy is based on lies

Last week, we argued that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s reversal of her predecessor’s policy restricting subpoenas of journalists will help President Donald Trump lie to the public.

This week we proved it. A memorandum released following a public records request by Lauren Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, confirmed prior reports that U.S. intelligence agencies don’t believe Trump’s claims that Venezuela’s government controls the Tren de Aragua gang. Bondi’s memo cited that same reporting as an example of damaging fake news that results from leaks.

As it turns out, the journalists who reported the intelligence agencies’ position got it exactly right, and the leaks in question only damaged Trump’s reputation by exposing the deception behind his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to ship Venezuelans to gulags in El Salvador. What better way to further our late co-founder’s legacy than exposing presidential lies to justify atrocities abroad? Read our press release and the New York Times report.

Attacks on law firms and nonprofits endanger the press

It doesn’t take a law degree to see that Trump’s attacks on law firms and nonprofits could also do irreparable harm to press freedom.

To learn more about what’s at stake, we spoke to legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams; general counsel for The Intercept, David Bralow; and Albert Sellars, partner Kendra Albert. Read about and watch the conversation here.

Ed Martin should be disbarred

Ed Martin, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was mostly in the news for palling around with white supremacists when Trump pulled his nomination for the permanent job as top prosecutor in Washington. But he’s also spent his career making a mockery of the ethical rules governing attorneys.

That’s why Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and Demand Progress filed a comprehensive disciplinary complaint against Martin. As our Advocacy Director Seth Stern explained, Martin’s antics, like sending “bogus letters and tweets to intimidate people exercising First Amendment rights and his threats to target news outlets President Trump dislikes, should disqualify him from practicing law, full stop.” Read more here.

Lights, camera, national security crisis!

Trump’s recent announcement that he plans to impose a 100% tariff on movies made outside the United States has created more confusion than the ending of “Inception.”

What is Trump talking about when he claims that making movies abroad threatens national security? When Trump claims to be protecting the homeland from foreign adversaries, he is often actually protecting his own false narratives from domestic scrutiny. Read more here.

Administration seeks to appoint itself the sole arbiter of truth

Trump’s vilification of the press should be seen in the context of his larger agenda to discredit any arbiter of fact and fiction that has not kissed the ring.

The goal is to make Trump’s “alternative facts” the only facts. That’s why the administration is going after not only journalists, but everyone from prestigious universities in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to small medical journals in Glenview, Illinois. Read Stern’s op-ed in the Daily Beast here.

What does Fullerton, California, have to hide?

We joined First Amendment Coalition in a letter objecting to a ban on newspaper distribution in government buildings by the city of Fullerton, California.

As the letter explains, “The ban sends the message … that the city is hostile to the free press and discourages criticism of its policies, preferring that residents only read government-approved messaging.” Read the letter here.

What we’re reading

Fear and intimidation at Newark airport (Al Jazeera). A Palestinian-American journalist was interrogated at the border about her reporting, but she refuses to stay silent. Journalists must continue to speak up about these abuses.

Jury orders NSO to pay $167 million for hacking WhatsApp users (Ars Technica). NSO Group has a long history of helping dictators and authoritarians spy on journalists and activists. Hopefully, this multimillion-dollar verdict will finally get their attention.

Montana governor signs landmark bill, as state becomes the 37th to enact anti-SLAPP protections (Institute for Free Speech). Legislatures in red and blue states alike understand there’s nothing partisan about protecting journalists, activists, and everyone else from anti-speech lawfare.

Takeaways from AFPC-USA’s 2025 World Press Freedom Day panel (The Association of Foreign Press Correspondents USA). FPF’s Seth Stern’s “remarks painted a stark picture of press freedom under direct political attack. He warned that without structural protections, the First Amendment itself is being tested, and norms that were once assumed unbreakable are now being shattered.”.

A student journalist covered a pro-Palestine protest. Soon, her graduation came under threat (Columbia Journalism Review). Columbia hit a new moral low by targeting a student journalist for her reporting on a pro-Palestinian sit-in before changing course. Lesson learned? Nope. The university then stooped even lower by suspending student journalists for covering protests.

freedom.press/issues/fpf-prove…

It doesn’t take a law degree to see that President Donald Trump’s attacks on law firms and nonprofits could also do irreparable harm to press freedom.

Since January, Trump has strong-armed law firms and targeted nonprofits, launching salvos against institutions he sees as roadblocks on his path to greater political control.

To learn about what’s at stake, we spoke to legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams; general counsel for The Intercept, David Bralow; and Albert Sellars partner Kendra Albert at an online webinar May 2.

youtube.com/embed/rV7Y8AhM8JA?…

Albert kicked off the conversation by explaining the “dramatic chilling effect” of Trump’s executive orders against law firms that represented his political opponents or made legal arguments he didn’t agree with.

“Journalists need lawyers,” they said. “If you cow the lawyers from being able to take clients who are oppositional to the government, it’s going to harm the press.”

Last month, Albert co-authored an amicus brief in opposition to Trump’s attacks against the law firm Perkins Coie. It was signed by 61 media organizations, and led by The Intercept and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF). Hours after the webinar, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell struck down Trump’s order targeting Perkins Coie as unconstitutional.

As Bralow explained, there once was a time when small newsrooms could quickly and easily obtain pro bono legal support if they faced a First Amendment challenge, because there was an ecosystem “that was active and supportive for all these rights.” That ecosystem was already in shambles before Trump’s executive orders, he said.

“Trump’s order is just simply a frontal attack. Small news organizations simply cannot find the strong voices without the assurances that they have strong legal representation,” Bralow warned.

Abrams said that, compared to the present, the attacks on law firms he saw decades ago when he represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers era were “almost minor league.” Under former President Richard Nixon, for example, “There were real threats about the press” like Espionage Act violations, he said, but “never anything like what we’re seeing today.”

“I can’t think of another public elected official that’s ever gone down this road,” he said of Trump.

While some law firms are challenging Trump in court, others aren’t. Abrams believes that, despite the risks, those capitulating to him should be counterattacking instead.

"This is not an effort to clean the legal landscape,” Abrams said of Trump’s actions. “It is to punish entities that he views as enemies.”

Albert is optimistic that Trump’s executive orders will continue to fail to withstand judicial scrutiny. “Judges, I think, have been receptive to the law firms’ arguments that these EOs are unconstitutional,” Albert said.

Nonprofits, including some that are news organizations, also face significant risks. Trump has broadened the scope of his attacks to these institutions, threatening to revoke their tax-exempt statuses for taking positions or reporting stories he disagrees with.

“I don’t know how you can be a nonprofit that is trying to do right by its community, its employees, and the nation without having real significant concern right now for the sort of retaliation, the sort of the rhetoric that is coming out of the administration,” Bralow said.

He discussed how The Intercept, which is a nonprofit, has worked to “button up” and “Trump-proof” the organization. The Intercept is also helping others, including by relaunching the Press Freedom Defense Fund, which gives money to small newsrooms to address legal threats.

Abrams said that while law firms deserve a share of the criticism, we shouldn’t lose sight of who the villain is in this story. “One thing has to be clear: This is all the president’s fault,” Abrams said. “There is no equality of blame here.”

freedom.press/issues/trumps-at…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Ed Martin, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has mostly been in the news lately for palling around with white supremacists. But he has also spent his career, including his current tenure as D.C.’s interim top prosecutor, making a mockery of the ethical and professional rules governing attorneys, while threatening the rule of law in the nation’s capital and beyond.

That’s why on Wednesday, Demand Progress and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) filed a comprehensive complaint, more than 20 pages long, with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the District of Columbia Bar, laying out a myriad of actions and decisions that clash with the ethics rules governing attorneys by Martin, who calls his public office “President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers.”

News broke on Thursday that President Donald Trump will pull Martin’s nomination for the permanent U.S. attorney post, but Trump said he still plans to find a place for Martin at the Department of Justice.

Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress, said, “Ed Martin is a grave threat to civil liberties and the rule of law, so any news indicating that he will no longer be President Trump’s legal point man in D.C. is good news for the nation. But this threat is far from over. Martin’s long, documented history of shamelessly playing politics with the rule of law should disqualify him from working anywhere in government, let alone the Justice Department. We call on President Trump to keep Martin far away from any position of power, especially one that requires sound legal judgment, and nominate someone for U.S. attorney for D.C. that actually respects the rule of law and Americans’ constitutional rights.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation Director of Advocacy Seth Stern said, “Martin’s antics, including his habit of sending bogus letters and tweets to intimidate people exercising First Amendment rights and his threats to target news outlets President Trump dislikes, should disqualify him from practicing law, full stop. We’re relieved that he won’t get the U.S. attorney job, but he should not be able to work for the government in any capacity, or to trade on his shameful interim tenure to find a cushy law firm job and further damage the legal profession.”

Martin’s shady behavior detailed in the complaint includes, among other things, frivolous threats against critics of Trump and Elon Musk, baseless partisan investigations into constitutionally protected statements by Democratic lawmakers, and public threats, made without legal basis or probable cause, to investigate targets whom he acknowledges have committed no crime.

The complaint also discusses his lack of credibility and candor while under oath during the U.S. Senate confirmation process for his U.S. attorney nomination, which includes his misleading turnabout on his disturbing connections to Nazi sympathizers and his pattern of failing to disclose hundreds of appearances on far-right and Russian-controlled media outlets. It lays out Martin’s history of serious lapses in ethical and professional judgment outside the national spotlight, as an attorney and politician in Missouri, to show that Martin’s disregard for the integrity of his profession is a long-standing problem that is unlikely to change.

The complaint asks the Disciplinary Counsel to investigate Martin’s conduct and to impose sanctions up to and including disbarment. It also urges the D.C. Bar to act promptly given the ongoing serious threat Martin’s ability to practice law poses.

You can read the complaint here. Please contact us if you would like further comment, or contact Eric Naing from Demand Progress at eric@demandprogress.org

freedom.press/issues/rights-or…

Die Bundeskanzlei teilt heute mit, dass das Referendum gegen das E-ID-Gesetz zu Stande gekommen ist. Die Piratenpartei Schweiz (PPS) als Referendumsführerin und als kritische Stimme der ersten Stunde zeigt sich erfreut über diesen demokratischen Erfolg. Die Schweizer Bevölkerung wird nun voraussichtlich am 28. September an der Urne erneut über das die elektronische Identität entscheiden können.

Die PPS hat bereits am Tag der Vernehmlassungseröffnung, am 29.06.2022, ihre Kritik am Gesetz dargelegt (Medienmitteilung [1] und SRF-Tagesschau [2]) und eine ausführliche Stellungnahme im Vernehmlassungsverfahren eingereicht. Unsere Experten wurden darauf zur Anhörung in die Nationalratskommission geladen [3], wo wir unsere roten Linien nochmals erläutern durften. Da die meisten davon im vorliegenden Gesetz überschritten wurden beschloss die Piratenpartei [4], das Referendum zu ergreifen [5].

Die Gründe, weshalb die PPS eindringlich vor den Folgen des E-ID-Gesetzes warnt:

1. Vorgetäuschte Freiwilligkeit – Faktischer Zwang durch Anwendungsbereiche und Gebühren
2. Vorgetäuschte Gründe – Bestehende Lösungen für Behördendienste
3. Datenabfluss an Unternehmen – Kommerzielle Interessen statt Bürgerschutz
4. Exzessive Datensammlung – Unnötige Speicherung besonders schützenswerter Daten
5. Unsicherer Online-Prozess – Erhöhtes Risiko für Identitätsdiebstahl

1. Vorgetäuschte Freiwilligkeit – Faktischer Zwang durch Anwendungsbereiche und Gebühren

Obwohl der Bund die E-ID als freiwillig bewirbt, deuten verschiedene Gesetzesvorhaben, politische Diskussionen und insbesondere das BGEID auf eine schleichende Pflicht hin. Das neue Jugendschutzgesetz schreibt eine Altersverifikation aller Nutzer von Video- und Gamingplattformen [6] vor und ein SocialMedia-Verbot für Jugendliche würde einen Ausweiszwang für alle bedingen. Ein Vorstoss im Bundeshaus verlangt die Identifizierung aller Kommentatoren auf Nachrichtenseiten [7], mit dem geplanten VÜPF (Art. 16 und 19) [8] sollen Messenger wie Threema ihre Nutzer identifizieren und aktuell soll sogar eCollecting nur mit einer E-ID möglich sein [9].
De Facto wird die E-ID schrittweise zur Voraussetzung für die Nutzung des Internets und die Ausübung demokratischer Rechte, was die Frage nach der tatsächlichen Freiwilligkeit aufwirft.

2. Vorgetäuschte Gründe – Bestehende Lösungen für Behördendienste

Viele der angeführten Gründe für die E-ID halten einer kritischen Prüfung nicht stand.
Behördendienstleistungen wie Steuererklärungen, Baugesuche und Kita-Gutscheine können bereits jetzt über die vom Bund und den Kantonen entwickelte AGOV-Lösung [10] abgewickelt werden. Auch ein Jugendschutz wäre damit realisierbar. Im Gegensatz zur E-ID ist AGOV vollständig staatlich und unabhängig von privaten Unternehmen wie Google oder Apple. Wir brauchen dafür keine E-ID.

3. Datenabfluss an Unternehmen – Kommerzielle Interessen statt Bürgerschutz

Der vorherige Punkt verdeutlicht, dass die E-ID primär für die Bedürfnisse von Privatunternehmen konzipiert scheint. Das BGEID erlaubt es Unternehmen zudem explizit, bei Transaktionen umfassende Personendaten inklusive Gesichtsbild zu verlangen. Dies führt dazu, dass sensible persönliche Informationen bei jeder simplen Nutzung an Unternehmen weitergegeben werden. Plattformen wie YouTube, Instagram oder TikTok könnten damit ihre Nutzer zweifelsfrei identifizieren, umfassend überwachen und die gesammelten Daten analysieren, verknüpfen und für ihre eigenen kommerziellen Zwecke nutzen. Die Verknüpfung detaillierter psychologischer Profile aus sozialen Medien mit den Daten des Schweizer Passes wäre für Werbegiganten äusserst wertvoll. Zudem würde die E-ID Onlinebetrug und Identitätsdiebstahl für Cyberkriminelle sogar noch erleichtern. Im Fall von TikTok fliessen die Daten sogar an den chinesischen Staat.
Auch die weiteren Ansinnen (siehe Punkt 1) alltägliche Handlungen mittels E-ID zu überwachen führt dazu, dass es vollkommen normal wird, sich im Internet dauernd auszuweisen.
Die E-ID wird Ausweiszwang im Internet durchsetzen [11].

4. Exzessive Datensammlung – Unnötige Speicherung besonders schützenswerter Daten
youtube.com/watch?v=epW4xEqr3m…

Beim Online-Ausstellungprozess muss man ein Gesichtsvideo einsenden [12], aus dem ein biometrischer 3D-Gesichtsabdruck erstellt werden kann. Diese sensiblen Daten sollen bis zu fünf Jahre nach Ablauf der E-ID gespeichert werden. Es besteht die reale Gefahr, dass diese biometrischen Daten später für die Gesichtserkennung im öffentlichen Raum eingesetzt werden könnten oder bei einem Cyber Vorfall Kriminellen in die Hände fallen. Diese massive Sammlung besonders schützenswerter Daten ist unnötig und äusserst bedenklich, da ein Gesicht im Gegensatz zu einem Passwort nicht geändert werden kann!
Besonders stossend ist Artikel 31 des BGEID [13], der Kantonen Gebühren für Bürger ohne E-ID erlaubt. Eine klare finanzielle Diskriminierung von Menschen mit geringem Einkommen.

5. Unsicherer Online-Prozess – Erhöhtes Risiko für Identitätsdiebstahl

Jüngste Vorfälle, bei denen Online-Ausstellungsverfahren von Banken durch Sicherheitsexperten kompromittiert wurden, zeigen die gravierenden Sicherheitsrisiken. Genau dieses Szenario droht auch bei der E-ID, was Kriminellen potenziell massenhaften Identitätsdiebstahl aller Schweizer Bürgerinnen und Bürger ermöglichen würde.

Fazit: Nein zur aktuellen E-ID

Das aktuelle BGEID genügt weder den Ansprüchen an Freiwilligkeit noch an Datensparsamkeit und Sicherheit. Stattdessen beliefert es Unternehmen mit unseren Daten und schafft gleichzeitig die Grundlagen für umfassende Überwachungsmassnahmen. Die Hauptgründe für die Ablehnung der E-ID in der ersten Abstimmung waren Bedenken hinsichtlich Sicherheit und Datenschutz [14] und diesen Bedenken wird in der neuen Fassung keine Genüge getan.

Eine E-ID, die die Bedürfnisse der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in den Mittelpunkt stellt und den Datenschutz konsequent berücksichtigt, könnte durchaus Vorteile bringen. Hierfür ist jedoch ein grundlegend anderer Ansatz erforderlich, der unnötige Datensammlungen vermeidet. Deshalb kämpfen wir Piraten weiterhin entschieden gegen das vorliegende E-ID-Gesetz und setzen uns für eine verantwortungsvolle Datenpolitik in der Schweiz ein.
Deshalb sagen wir NEIN zu dieser E-ID.

Bereits bei unserem Referendum im 2021 lehnte die Schweizer Bevölkerung an der Urne die E-ID mit 64.4 Prozent deutlich ab. Der Hauptgrund waren Bedenken zu Sicherheit und Datenschutz [14]. Für den zweiten Anlauf wurde ursprünglich eine datensparsame, auf die Privatsphäre der Bürger Rücksicht nehmende E-ID garantiert.

Pascal Fouquet, Vizepräsident der Piratenpartei Bern: „Uns wurde eine E-ID im Interesse der Bevölkerung versprochen. Bekommen haben wir das Gegenteil, ein weiteres Instrument zur Datensammlung – für Staat und Wirtschaft. Weder bei der Ausstellung noch bei der Anwendung ist sie ausreichend datensparsam. Darum sagen wir jetzt klar NEIN zur E-ID!“

Renato Sigg, Vorstandsmitglied Piratenpartei Schweiz „Aus Sicht der Piratenpartei stehen Nutzen und Risiko in keinem Verhältnis. Nicht nur wirtschaftlichen Interessen, sondern auch dem Machtstreben anderer Akteure im In- und Ausland muss mit der gebotenen Vorsicht begegnet werden.“

Die PPS ist die einzige gesamtgesellschaftliche Organisation, die dieses gefährliche Gesetz ablehnt. Wir werden die kritische Stimmen aus der bürgerlichen oder linken Bevölkerung in den nächsten Monaten mittragen.

Jorgo Ananiadis, Präsident Piratenpartei Schweiz: „Alle anderen Parteien nehmen die Risiken der E-ID billigend in Kauf und sagen Hauptsache eine E-ID. Es wird für uns Piraten ein Kraftakt sein, die Bevölkerung zu überzeugen – aber die Argumente liegen klar auf unserer Seite.“

Alexis Roussel, ehemaliger Co-Präsident der Piratenpartei Schweiz: „Mit dieser Abstimmung erhält das Schweizer Volk eine zweite Chance, sich gegen aufgezwungene Technologien zu wehren. Jetzt geht es darum, die Digitale Integrität der Menschen auf Bundesebene zu schützen.“

Wir danken allen engagierten Menschen, die beim Zustandekommen des Referendums mitgeholfen haben.

Quellen:
[1] https://www.piratenpartei.chhttps://www.piratenpartei.ch/2022/06/29/vernehmlassungseroeffnung-e-id/
[2] srf.ch/play/tv/tagesschau/vide…
[3] https://www.piratenpartei.chhttps://www.piratenpartei.ch/2024/01/22/teilnahme-anhoerung-rechtskommission-nr-zur-e-id/
[4] projects.piratenpartei.ch/proj…
[5] https://www.piratenpartei.chhttps://www.piratenpartei.ch/2025/01/10/piratenpartei-ergreift-das-referendum-gegen-das-e-id-gesetz/
[6] fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2022/2…
[7] parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/su…
[8] fedlex.admin.ch/filestore/fedl…
[9] parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/su…
[10] agov.admin.ch/
[11] ausweiszwang-nein.ch/
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epW4xEqr3mw&t=689s
[13] fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2025/2…
[14] archive.ph/o/EMUyU/vox.gfsbern…

piratenpartei.ch/2025/05/07/e-…

President Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he plans to impose a 100% tariff on movies made outside the United States has created more confusion than the ending of “Inception.”

But there are two important questions no one seems to be asking. Namely: What in the world is Trump talking about when he claims that making movies outside the U.S. is a national security threat? And why should anyone — let alone any court — ever take this administration seriously again when it claims national security is endangered?

In his Truth Social post about the movie tariff, Trump makes two main arguments (if you can call them that) based on national security. Both are completely unjustified.

First, he claims that the U.S. filmmaking industry is being “devastated” by other nations trying to lure moviemakers to their countries. “This is a concerted effort by other Nations,” he wrote, “and, therefore, a National Security threat.”

But economic harm doesn’t necessarily mean national security harm. While it may mean less money for parts of the American film industry, filming “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning” in Norway doesn’t make us less secure. Plus tariffs are a nonsensical way to safeguard national security — foreign adversaries can attack us as long as they pay a fine?

Also, some movies simply must be made outside the U.S. The last three winners of the Academy Award for Best Documentary — “No Other Land,” “20 Days in Mariupol,” and “Navalny” — were all filmed outside the U.S. because they told stories from outside the U.S. Slapping movies like those with tariffs will make them more expensive and less likely to be made or shown in the U.S., depriving Americans of important perspectives about what’s going on in the rest of the world.

Trump’s second national security argument is that foreign-made movies are “in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!” It’s a rich claim, given Hollywood’s history exporting U.S. propaganda and present-day examples of links between U.S. films and U.S. interests.

Trump’s national security claims are just like the movies: all smoke and mirrors.

It’s also essentially the same argument used by both Trump and former President Joe Biden to justify the TikTok ban, i.e., that foreign-made mass media threatens national security by exposing Americans to foreign propaganda. The Supreme Court got it wrong in upholding the TikTok ban. But it applied a lower level of First Amendment scrutiny to the law based on TikTok’s special characteristics, including its collection of vast amounts of data. That leniency shouldn’t apply to a tariff or other law that burdens speech simply because it’s created outside the U.S.

And have you noticed that we haven’t heard much about the app’s supposed massive threat to our national security lately? That’s because Trump no longer wants to ban it, now that he’s amassed millions of followers there and met with the Republican megadonor who also owns part of TikTok. The social platform continues to operate in the U.S., and somehow our national security has remained intact.

This all goes to show that, just like many other purported national security concerns, “propaganda” is simply a convenient argument for an administration to invoke when it suits its purposes and to discard when it doesn’t. Other administrations have also invoked national security when convenient to avoid hard questions or uncomfortable truths. But Trump is taking it to a whole new level.

According to Trump, almost anything can be justified by citing national security: deporting students who write op-eds critical of Israel in college newspapers, refusing to tell a judge what time U.S. planes carrying migrants took off, even attacking Greenland.

Most concerningly for journalists and their sources, the Trump administration has also launched numerous leak investigations and rolled back protections for journalists’ records, all in the name of national security. But documents released to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) via the Freedom of Information Act show that the reporting the administration cited to justify its crackdown on leaks to reporters did not threaten our national security as claimed.

Instead, they exposed that the administration’s justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans to El Salvador was rejected by American intelligence agencies. When Trump claims to be protecting the homeland from foreign adversaries he is often actually protecting his own false narratives from domestic scrutiny.

Many of these national security claims will be challenged in court, and all of them should be weighed skeptically in the court of public opinion. Given this administration’s track record, judges and the public must remember that Trump’s national security claims are just like the movies: all smoke and mirrors.

freedom.press/issues/lights-ca…

• Survivors of modern slavery, domestic abuse and gender-based violence need the data regulator to help protect them from abusers and stalkers.

• Open Rights Group calls for change in law to help vulnerable people preserve their privacy and safety.

• Siân Berry MP tables amendment to DUA Bill to introduce a statutory complaints procedure for people in vulnerable situations, along with a right of appeal to the Information Tribunal.

Open Rights Group is calling for a change to the law to protect the privacy and safety of survivors of modern slavery and gender-based violence. Data protection violations can have a devastating impact on anyone who has experienced violence or abuse. Any information that can reveal their habits and whereabouts, putting them and their children at risk of harm.

The Information Commissioner’s Office currently faces a serious backlog in handling complaints. ORG wants it be easier for people who are vulnerable to bring complaints to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if companies and organisations have failed to protect their data adequately.

The digital rights organisation is supporting an amendment to the Data Use and Access (DUA) Bill put forward by Siân Berry MP that would ensure that the ICO has an appropriate complaint-handling procedures for surviors of modern slavery, domestic abuse, gender-based violence, or people who are otherwise vulnerable.

Proper redress

Berry’s amendment would also enable vulnerable people to be able to appeal to the Information Tribunal if they believe the ICO has failed to address their complaint properly. The ICO has a long track record of refusing to act upon complaints: a recent Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure revealed that the ICO took “regulatory action” in just 1 (0.00%) case out of the 25,582 complaints lodged with them in 2024. Currently, members of the public have no recourse if the ICO decide not to act on their complaints. The amendment would ensure that at the very least vulnerable people have recourse to challenge ICO inaction.

Sarah’s story*

In late 2022, Sarah – a survivor of sexual assault and domestic abuse – discovered that a private document containing her traceable personal information, including her legal and nick names, multiple inclusions of her property’s address (not her current home), identifiable photograph, email address, and other personal details, were mishandled by a London councillor and uploaded to a public website.

The confidential file included enough information to trace Sarah to her current home – a place she had considered her “Safe Space.” Sarah is extremely vigilant about her privacy particularly online, as she is acutely aware of the risks if her data were to be harvested or accessed by her abusers.

This marked the beginning of a gruelling ordeal with the Council to have the information removed. During this time, highly sensitive and intimate details of the abuse Sarah had experienced were also shared without her consent with council staff and an external organisation.

Sarah is now a legally registered Anonymous Voter, a special status meant to shield survivors from being located by former abusers, but incredibly she recently made the discovery that the private data remains online. Despite multiple erasure requests (including one from her elderly mother) the information is still live online – a devastating reliving of the sense of violation and fear all over again.

Sarah has ADHD, complex PTSD, and other hidden disabilities. She says the emotional toll of trying to get help from both the Council and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) pushed her into dissociation – a protective but disabling response to overwhelming trauma. She felt gaslit, unheard, and unsupported, which pushed her to crisis.

“After being failed by the Council, I was failed by the ICO. This has been an absolutely horrific experience, and yet I still don’t believe the ICO truly understands how much this has shattered my sense of safety – even though they knew I was vulnerable, and that I have a disability that affects how I process distress.

It’s hard enough for anyone to take on a public institution – let alone a survivor with a disability. I had to fight for the right to be taken seriously, and it wasn’t until my MP intervened that the ICO even began to officially open a case with what I thought was a historic breach, but turned out to be an ongoing live breach.

I am retraumatised every day knowing this information is still online. We urgently need a change in the law and more robust protections, so no other survivor has to go through this hell.”

*Name changed to protect identity

James Baker, Platform Power Programme Manager said:

“For survivors of domestic abuse, data privacy can be a matter of life or death. It’s vital that anyone who is in a position of vulnerability has recourse to protect their personal information and prevent it from being exploited by abusers.

“Right now vulnerable people who have experienced data protection violations have more chance of winning the lottery than finding meaningful redress by complaining to the ICO.

“We urge MPs to change the law and protect the people who need privacy to stay safe.”

Siân Berry MP for Brighton Pavilion said:

“Data breaches are risking the lives of vulnerable individuals, especially victims of domestic abuse. My amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill would offer these individuals a protected complaints procedure, and the ability to hold to account the companies and organisations whose reckless data mishandling exposes them further harm.”

Digital Privacy

Hands Off Our Data

Find Out More

Support ORG
Become a Member

openrightsgroup.org/press-rele…