Press Freedoms and the Espionage Act under President Trump
By: Rajeshwari Rawal
Edited by: Payton Hawkins and William Liu
The Pentagon’s revised press policies, effective October 15, 2025, marked a new era for press engagement within the political sphere. [1] Spearheaded by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the implementation of these new conditions for reporters within the Pentagon caused a mass exodus of news outlets; reporters from almost every major media outlet, including Fox News, turned in their press badges following the deadline to accept the new terms. The updated policies mandate that reporters must be escorted by Pentagon personnel when entering certain areas and discourage outlets from reporting information not officially approved for public release by a Pentagon official, irrespective of whether the information is classified, among other rules. The policies were underscored by the claim that press credentials are a privilege, not a right, and that failure to meet these standards would result in revocation of press credentials. [2]
This latest policy update is indicative of a broader, sustained effort by the Trump administration to suppress critical journalism and the free press as a whole. [3] Under the guise of national security, the new legal parameters establish a precedent that could limit media scrutiny and analysis of the federal government, effectively reducing both press credibility and neutrality. In effect, the Trump administration is using legal mechanisms as a form of de facto censorship.
The weaponization of the Espionage Act of 1917 comes to the forefront in this case as a broad criminal statute in the realm of national security. This act, enacted shortly after the United States entered World War I, is a federal law that made it a “crime to convey information intended to interfere with the war effort.” Throughout history, the executive branch has used it against journalists and press freedoms, a pattern currently evident in the Pentagon. While the act was not modified, the expansion of prepublication review and a larger focus on “Controlled Unclassified Information” (CUI) makes it easier for government officials to label certain reporting as unauthorized. These regulations once served as direction to the Intelligence Community and now function as “triggers for prosecution,” which aligns with the trend of targeting disfavored speech and coverage of the administration. [4] Hegseth and other members of the administration have also seized upon the idea of Controlled Unclassified Information as a means to shape the rules surrounding press access in the Pentagon and information regarding defense. The Intelligence Community Directive 711 requires current and former intelligence personnel to submit work before public release, even if the author believes the work contains no classified material. [5] Again, what formerly served as guidance is now used as a warning to journalists, threatening legal action should the new terms not be met. While it is untrue in many cases that disclosing CUI without permission will harm national security, the emphasis on these new guidelines effectively screens reporters from access to the Pentagon, creating a “boundary for public reporting.” [6]
The Espionage Act is not the only piece of legislation the administration is using to revise its rules around and practices towards the press. Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) ruled that the First Amendment could not be used as a defense for reporters who were summoned to testify before a grand jury. [7] Based on this legal standard, the Trump administration has the power to jail reporters for contempt should they refuse to disclose their sources; Trump pledged, if he won the 2024 election, to “toss reporters in jail” if coverage clashed with his expectations. [8] The safety and confidentiality of journalists’ sources are jeopardized by the new legal doctrine the administration seeks to institute. Furthermore, the administration could directly prosecute reporters and editors for publishing stories related to national defense, effectively rewriting the narrative of media coverage as it pertains to governmental subjects. The new Pentagon policies regarding the press nod to the more subtle aim of the administration; O’Neill and Schulz describe it as a prosecution trigger: “New credential pledges, an expanded focus on 'Controlled Unclassified Information,' and broadened prepublication review requirements have not amended the law, but they have multiplied the circumstances in which reporting can be cast as 'unauthorized.’” [9] When more restrictions are made, more journalists and whistleblowers can be prosecuted.
Trump’s second administration continues to use the Espionage Act to target journalists. During Trump’s first term, the Justice Department conducted leak investigations by secretly obtaining the email and phone records of reporters from three major news outlets — The Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN. [10] And this also is certainly not the first time the Trump administration, during either its first or second term, has used the law to censor news outlets it deems unfavorable to its image. Prior to his second term, Trump filed a lawsuit against CBS alleging that the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris was edited. [11] Although press experts expected CBS to win, Paramount Global, its parent company, settled the lawsuit, ultimately suggesting deference to Trump’s authority and his increased ability to control the media.
Trump also challenged the legal precedence of New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark Supreme Court case from 1964, which secured First Amendment protections for the press and people who speak about public officials. [12] His legal challenges include the $15B defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. [13] In challenging this case, Trump seeks to open up libel law, effectively expanding the ability of his administration to prosecute journalists and commentators who write, speak, or publish information he deems critical or unfavorable to his image. Beyond just protecting his image, Aissatou Diallo explains that challenging the First Amendment protections set by New York Times v. Sullivan “indicate[s] attempts to intimidate the press, limit important investigative journalism, and shape the media apparatus into one that is censored.” [14]
Historically, the First Amendment has played a decisive role in landmark cases regarding the press, including those pertaining to national security concerns. Much of the law surrounding press freedom derives from the First Amendment, which is a prohibition on censorship of the media and government oversight. The “Pentagon Papers” case, New York Times v. United States (1971), ruled in favor of First Amendment protections for journalists. The Nixon administration sought to bar the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing classified documents relating to the Vietnam War; however, The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon’s claims that the publication would result in harm to the national interest were unproven. [15]
Both legal and journalism experts are not certain whether the Pentagon’s new policies violate the First Amendment. Although Clay Calvert, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said it’s unclear, he noted that its provisions work to “hamstring journalistic independence… If you can control access to information, you can control journalism.” [16] The Trump administration’s adherence to the First Amendment has been called into question several times. The administration has repeatedly sought to bar journalists from accessing key places in Washington, such as the Pentagon, the Oval Office, and Air Force One, through legal means in response to coverage it didn’t like. [17] In February 2025, the White House banned the Associated Press from accessing particular press events because of their continued use of the term “the Gulf of Mexico.” [18] When a federal judge pushed back on the ban, arguing for the restoration of access for the Associated Press on the grounds of First Amendment rights, the administration countered that the Associated Press did not have a constitutional right to specific presidential events, thereby reinforcing their own legal doctrine against the outlet.
The Trump administration’s use of lawsuits and legal doctrine to influence the media landscape indicates a trend of manipulation through legal means. David Enrich, a New York Times editor, discussed the rise of conservative media on NPR: “[Conservative media] has been increasingly effective at making the argument that the media no longer deserves the First Amendment protections that it has long had. The argument is predicated on this idea that it has become impossible for normal people, when their reputations are damaged by the media, to seek recourse through the courts… it basically leads people to self-censor.” [19] This is reinforced by the quick action by media outlets and conglomerates to settle legal battles when facing backlash from the Trump administration, as Paramount Global did in the case of CBS’s 60 Minutes interview. Trump has repeatedly called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” making it no surprise that he repeatedly uses lawsuits against media companies that he deems as attacking his image or ideology. Expanding the horizons of libel law and other means of prosecuting journalists, per Diallo, “signals a new and growing use of lawsuits and regulatory agencies to threaten the independence of the press and chill free speech.” [20]
Notes:
1. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, “Updated physical control measures for Press/Media access within the Pentagon,” May 23, 2025.
2. Geoff Bennett and Dan Sagalyn, “Why News Organizations Are Rejecting the Pentagon, New Press Rules,” PBS News, October 15, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-news-organizations-are-rejecting-the-pentagons-new-press-rules.
3. Ellessandra Taormino, “Trump’s Attacks on Press Freedom Escalate: NPR, PBS Funding Cuts Explained | ACLU,” American Civil Liberties Union, August 5, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/trumps-attacks-on-press-freedom-escalate-npr-pbs-funding-cuts-explained.
4. Brian O’Neill and David Schulz, “Weaponizing the Espionage Act: What It Means for Whistleblowers, Reporters, and Democracy,” Just Security, October 20, 2025, https://www.justsecurity.org/122491/weaponizing-espionage-act-what-it-means/.
5. Director of National Intelligence, “Clarification of Requirement Included in Intelligence Community Directive 711, Prepublication Reviews, 12 July 2024,” July 12, 2024.
6. O’Neill and Schulz, “Weaponizing the Espionage Act: What It Means for Whistleblowers, Reporters, and Democracy.”
7. “Branzburg v. Hayes,” Oyez, n.d., https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-85.
8. David Folkenflik, “Jailed Reporters, Silenced Networks: What Trump Says He’d Do to the Media if Elected,” NPR, October 23, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5161480/trump-media-threats-abc-cbs-60-minutes-journalists.
9. O’Neill and Schulz, “Weaponizing the Espionage Act: What It Means for Whistleblowers, Reporters, and Democracy.”
10. Harjaap Ahluwalia, Osgoode Hall Law School Ca, “Watchdog Says US Department of Justice Secretly Obtained Congressional Phone Records During Trump Administration,” JURIST - News, December 12, 2024, https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/12/watchdog-report-reveals-us-doj-secretly-obtained-congressional-phone-records-during-trump-administration/.
11. David Bauder, “‘60 Minutes’ Reveals Editing Process With Trump Interview | AP News,” AP News, November 4, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-60-minutes-cbs-editing-6199baa2046016bb808cdcaa69b3bf33.
12. “New York Times Company v. Sullivan,” Oyez, n.d., https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39.
13. David Bauder, “Trump Sues the New York Times for Defamation, Seeks $15 Billion | AP News,” AP News, September 16, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-lawsuit-new-york-times-b2a615192ebe2dcec859eb883368dfbb
14. Aissatou Diallo, “The Chilling Effect: Trump’s Legal Challenge on Free Speech and Journalistic Independence — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review,” Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, June 2, 2025, https://www.culawreview.org/current-events-2/the-chilling-effect-trumps-legal-challenge-on-free-speech-and-journalistic-independence.
15. Jane E. Kirtley, “Legal Foundations of Press Freedom in the United States,” by University of Minnesota, School of Journalism and Mass Communications, n.d., https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/gli/gli_feb2003d.pdf.
16. Brieanna Frank, “Does the Pentagon’s Media Policy Violate the First Amendment?,” Freedom Forum, 2025, https://www.freedomforum.org/pentagon-media-policy-first-amendment/.
17. Kathryn Watson, “White House Bars Associated Press From Spaces Like Oval Office and Air Force One,” CBS News, February 15, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-bars-associated-press-oval-office-air-force-one/.
18. “USA: 8 Ways Trump Is Shrinking the Space for Press Freedom – Literally,” RSF, n.d., https://rsf.org/en/usa-8-ways-trump-shrinking-space-press-freedom-literally.
19. Michel Martin, “How The Powerful Are Using Lawsuit Threats to Silence Media and ‘Murder the Truth,’” NPR, April 9, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5318045/freedom-of-the-press-lawsuits-trump.
20. Diallo, “The Chilling Effect: Trump’s Legal Challenge on Free Speech and Journalistic Independence.”
Bibliography:
Bauder, David. “‘60 Minutes’ Reveals Editing Process With Trump Interview | AP News.” AP News, November 4, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/trump-60-minutes-cbs-editing-6199baa2046016bb808cdcaa69b3bf33.
Bennett, Geoff, and Dan Sagalyn. “Why News Organizations Are Rejecting the Pentagon, New Press Rules.” PBS News, October 15, 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-news-organizations-are-rejecting-the-pentagons-new-press-rules.
Ca, Harjaap Ahluwalia | Osgoode Hall Law School. “Watchdog Says US Department of Justice Secretly Obtained Congressional Phone Records During Trump Administration.” JURIST - News, December 12, 2024. https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/12/watchdog-report-reveals-us-doj-secretly-obtained-congressional-phone-records-during-trump-administration/.
Diallo, Aissatou. “The Chilling Effect: Trump’s Legal Challenge on Free Speech and Journalistic Independence — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review.” Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, June 2, 2025. https://www.culawreview.org/current-events-2/the-chilling-effect-trumps-legal-challenge-on-free-speech-and-journalistic-independence.
Director of National Intelligence. “Clarification of Requirement Included in Intelligence Community Directive 711, Prepublication Reviews, 12 July 2024,” July 12, 2024.
Frank, Brieanna. “Does the Pentagon’s Media Policy Violate the First Amendment?” Freedom Forum, 2025. https://www.freedomforum.org/pentagon-media-policy-first-amendment/.
Kirtley, Jane E. “Legal Foundations of Press Freedom in the United States.” School of Journalism and Mass Communications, n.d. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/gli/gli_feb2003d.pdf.
Martin, Michel. “How The Powerful Are Using Lawsuit Threats to Silence Media and ‘Murder the Truth.’” NPR, April 9, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5318045/freedom-of-the-press-lawsuits-trump.
O’Neill, Brian, and David Schulz. “Weaponizing the Espionage Act: What It Means for Whistleblowers, Reporters, and Democracy.” Just Security, October 20, 2025. https://www.justsecurity.org/122491/weaponizing-espionage-act-what-it-means/.
Oyez. “Branzburg v. Hayes,” n.d. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-85.
Oyez. “New York Times Company v. Sullivan,” n.d. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39.
RSF. “USA: 8 Ways Trump Is Shrinking the Space for Press Freedom – Literally,” n.d. https://rsf.org/en/usa-8-ways-trump-shrinking-space-press-freedom-literally.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. “Updated physical control measures for Press/Media access within the Pentagon,” May 23, 2025.
Taormino, Ellessandra. “Trump’s Attacks on Press Freedom Escalate: NPR, PBS Funding Cuts Explained | ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union, August 5, 2025. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/trumps-attacks-on-press-freedom-escalate-npr-pbs-funding-cuts-explained.