Just Security – “President Donald Trump has made suppressing speech he doesn’t like a governing priority. From his first days back in office he cast dissent as disloyalty, promising “retribution” against anyone who criticized, investigated, or resisted him. He then translated that promise into action through regulatory proceedings, lawsuits, clearance revocations, and restrictions on press access. There have been some speed bumps along the way—setbacks in court, corporate reversals under pressure—but the effort to limit what the press reports remains steady. The mechanics of Trump’s campaign to muzzle the media were on display in the brief suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! after a Kimmel monologue following the murder of Charlie Kirk prompted the chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to suggest that ABC affiliates that continued to air the show risked regulatory sanctions. They were evident in Trump’s $15 billion defamation suit against *The New York Times *and others for allegedly conspiring to portray him as corrupt, in a complaint so obviously written to advance a political narrative rather than to right a legal wrong that the court immediately threw it out as “decidedly improper and impermissible.” And they were reflected in the new press policy announced by the Department of Defense asking Pentagon reporters to acknowledge that soliciting information not pre-approved for public release is illegal and grounds for revocation of their press passes. These moves—threatened regulatory action, sprawling lawsuits, credential pledges—are soft instruments. They rely on leverage, intimidation, and the hope that delay or distribution control will shape behavior without forcing a direct constitutional clash. But their very limits point to what remains available. When regulatory pressure stalls or procedural setbacks mount, the administration still holds a statute with sharper teeth for controlling news reports: the Espionage Act of 1917. The Act’s scope is broad, its penalties severe, and it contains no explicit public-interest defense. It has been used to punish leakers and intermediaries; under some readings, its sanctions could also apply to the press.

What has prevented its application to journalists until now has not been the text of the statute, but the choice of presidents and prosecutors to exercise the type of restraint this administration has shown little interest in. While no administration official has publicly pledged to indict journalists under the Act, the administration’s posture and rhetoric make plain that it understands the statute’s power. In June, when asked directly about the potential use of the Espionage Act against journalists, a White House spokesman stated: “Leaking classified information is a crime, and anyone who threatens American national security in this manner should be held accountable.”Unlike access rules or civil litigation, the Espionage Act’s reach is criminal, its language capacious, and its chilling effect immediate. It does not require prior restraint for the Act to narrow what the public learns. The law raises the stakes after publication, transforming routine reporting on national security into potential criminal exposure. This is the hard edge that makes every softer measure credible. Behind the latest experiment in credential control lies a law designed for spies, now positioned to be wielded against journalists and possibly others—academics, commentators, even comedians—who speak up on any issue the administration can link to a perceived national security concern…”

Posted in: Censorship, Civil Liberties, Free Speech, Government Documents, Legal Research, Legislation