Resistance Media

07/24/2025

Truth Under Siege

The environment for press freedom in the United States is entering a perilous new phase. Trump executive actions and policy changes have had a chilling effect on journalists and have seriously curtailed media freedom.

The attacks have been unprecedented, widespread and continue to escalate:

—Suing the Des Moines Register and Iowa pollster Ann Selzer over a poll that predicted Kamala Harris would win the presidential election. 

—Seizing control of the White House Press pool, manipulating the national narrative by punitively restricting reporter access. Banning the Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal in retaliation for editorial decisions. Restricting access of the press in the Pentagon.

—Gutting the U.S. Agency for International Development, imperiling fragile newsrooms in hostile locations around the world that rely significantly on U.S. funding, placing their journalists at risk.

—Pardoning over a dozen individuals charged with or convicted of violent crimes against journalists at the US Capitol during the insurrection on January 6, 2021.

—Issuing sanctions against the International Criminal Court, targeting the main judicial body with the authority to investigate and prosecute war crimes committed against journalists worldwide. 

—Mounting Federal Communications Commission investigations against CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, PBS and California television station KCBS.

—Silencing, through the U.S. Agency for Global Media, five vital U.S. government-funded broadcasters, including the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, that for decades have provided alternative perspectives to millions living in authoritarian countries around the world.

—Suing ABC over a statement by George Stephanopoulos on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, extracting a $15 million settlement from parent Disney. 

—Suing CBS over alleged “election interference” for the editing of a 60 Minutes Kamala Harris interview, extracting a $16 million settlement, from parent Paramount Global.

—Eliminating $1 billion of Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding, placing PBS and NPR stations across the country in jeopardy.

—Issuing an executive order prohibiting federal agencies from collaborating with social media companies on content moderation, preventing efforts to combat disinformation.

—Imposing visa restrictions on foreign officials accused of censoring Americans on digital platforms, suppressing international journalistic collaboration.

—Pressing a defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board, challenging its decision to award the 2018 National Reporting Pulitzer to The New York Times and Washington Post for their coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

—Dismissing at least 17 inspectors general, undermining internal oversight mechanisms that often collaborate with journalists to expose governmental misconduct.

—Replacing Voice of America and other U.S. Agency for Global Media content with highly partisan programming from One America Network.

—Directing the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation into Media Matters for America, a leading media watchdog organization, over allegations of coordinated advertising boycotts targeting X.

—Revoking the security clearance of Attorney Mark Zaid, who represented a government whistleblower in a case that led to Trump’s impeachment during his first term.

—Pressing a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal in response to its reporting on Trump’s connections with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

—Suing The New York Times, seeking $15 billion in damages for alleged defamation in its coverage of the 2024 presidential election.

—Pressuring Paramount Global, causing CBS to cancel Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show.

—Directing the FCC to threaten Disney, causing ABC to cancel Jimmy Kimmel Live!

—Empowering ICE to deport Salvadoran journalist Mario Guevara in retaliation for his coverage of a “No Kings” protest outside Atlanta.

—Authorizing ICE to use violence including pepper balls and tear gas against journalists covering ICE protests in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland.

 The future is likely to be far more difficult.

Lawfare and the War on Free Expression

Legal assaults on the press are unfolding within a deeper crisis of lawlessness. As Stephen Miller’s America First Legal continues shaping policy from outside government, the Supreme Court issues unsigned, late-night rulings from its shadow docket and the Trump administration routinely defies judicial authority, the foundational principle of the rule of law is being systematically eroded.

The most immediate and serious threat to journalists has emerged following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In late September, Trump signed an executive order designating Antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.” A few days later, he issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) on “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.”

The memo directs executive departments and agencies to implement “a comprehensive national strategy to investigate, prosecute, and disrupt entities and individuals engaged in acts of political violence and intimidation designed to suppress lawful political activity or obstruct the rule of law.”

The memo provides that the Attorney General may designate as a “domestic terrorist organization” any group or entity whose members are engaged in unlawful acts that are “dangerous to human life” and “appear to be intended” to intimidate or coerce the government or civilians.

Due to NSPM-7’s broad expansion of what constitutes “political violence” and “domestic terrorism,” and its directive to aggressively investigate and prosecute activities that could include speech, reporting, funding and organizational ties, the memo presents significant new threats to the press.

Media organizations and journalists are now at risk of increased surveillance and monitoring, financial scrutiny by the DOJ, Treasury, and IRS and federal investigation and prosecution for investigative reporting, coverage of protests and dissenting speech now being conflated with terrorist acts or conspiracies.

NSPM-7 represents a clear and present danger to journalistic activity historically protected by the First Amendment:

• Redefining Speech and Reporting as ‘Radicalization’: The memorandum considers nonviolent speech, social media posts, and reporting on protest movements as part of “campaigns of radicalization.” Journalists covering dissent or criticizing government policy could be accused of promoting or enabling “political violence,” making them subject to federal investigation.
• FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) Investigations: NSPM-7 directs JTTFs to comprehensively investigate networks, organizations, and individuals linked, directly or indirectly, to protests, activist movements, or any activities considered subversive. Reporters covering political violence, civil disorder, or other forms of dissent could be implicated through broad associations with their sources or organizational subjects.
• Financial and Tax Scrutiny: The order instructs DOJ, Treasury, and IRS to scrutinize funding sources, donors, and financial flows involved in advocacy, protest support, and related nonprofit journalism. Media organizations could face audits, loss of tax status, or charges of “material support” for terrorism depending on how their reporting connects to flagged groups or individuals.
• Social Media and Platform Pressure: Law enforcement is empowered to pressure social media companies to suppress or remove content related to designated “terrorist” movements; investigative journalism on contentious topics or government malfeasance could be de-amplified or censored as a result.
• Focus on Political Rhetoric and International Ties: Investigative reporting with international connections or addressing topics such as migration, race, gender, or foreign partners may face greater risk under expanded definitions of conspiracy or foreign agent activity.

According to the Brennan Center:

Building on the antifa executive order, which already targets a broad range of political speech, NSPM-7 directs federal agencies to prioritize investigations of a swath of identities and ideologies that it depicts as falling under “the umbrella of self-described ‘anti-fascism.’” These include “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

This breathtakingly broad list easily encompasses everyone from labor organizers, socialists, many libertarians, those who criticize Christianity, pro-immigration groups, anti-ICE protestors, and racial justice and transgender activists, to anyone who holds views that the administration considers to be “anti-American.” Under NSPM-7, the antifascist label can be attached to any of these types of people and groups and many more besides, giving the government maximum flexibility to pick and choose its targets.

For all its references to violence and intimidation, much of NSPM-7 is squarely directed at speech and nonviolent action by organizations and individuals protected by the First Amendment. One of the targets of the memo is “campaigns of . . . radicalization” — that is, speech aimed at promoting ideas that the administration considers to be “radical.”

In April, the administration took another major step that threatens the foundation of a free press by rescinding a Biden-era policy which protected reporter’s notes and phone records from searches by the government.

According to Attorney General Pam Bondi, reporters will be aggressively pursued in government leak investigations and could be subject to arrest if they refuse to comply when served with search warrants and subpoenas.

Bondi issued a memorandum to all U.S. Department of Justice employees titled “Updated Policy Regarding Obtaining Information From, or Records of, Members of the News Media.” The memo outlines changes to the DOJ’s internal “news media guidelines” that governs the use of subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants targeting journalists, their third-party communications or other service providers.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly made an explicit campaign promise that he would “open up” the nation’s libel laws.

Trump has sued numerous media outlets and his billionaire allies are threatening to launch aggressive SLAPP attacks of their own. Starting in 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark First Amendment decision that made it difficult for public officials to prevail in libel suits.

That idea gained momentum in 2021, when Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said the decision “has evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods by means and on a scale previously unimaginable.”

However, in March 2025 the Supreme Court declined to hear a libel case brought by casino mogul Steve Wynn against the Associated Press, effectively upholding lower court rulings in favor of the news organization. Wynn had sued the AP for defamation over a 2018 report that cited police records alleging he had engaged in sexual misconduct. Wynn claimed the AP had published the story with “actual malice”—the legal standard set by Times v. Sullivan for defamation cases involving public figures.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case means the existing precedent from Sullivan remains in place for now. This standard requires public figures to prove that false statements were made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth—an intentionally high bar meant to protect press freedom.

In the face of escalating defamation suits against the press, it may be only a matter of time before the court agrees to take up a future case that could weaken or overturn Sullivan.

A War on the Press Around the World: a Warning

On a daily basis, journalists around the world face doxing, surveillance, threats, arrests and violence. With the ascendancy of authoritarian regimes, journalists are being targeted and newsrooms are being silenced at an alarming rate.

A quick review of the “Alerts” section of the Committee to Protect Journalists web site tells the grim story—reporting and free expression is under siege in every corner of the globe: Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Iran, Israel, India, Tunisia, Sudan, Palestine, Georgia, China, Ecuador, Turkey, Vietnam, Egypt, Argentina, El Salvador, Hungary, United Arab Emeritus, Saudi Arabia, Guinea, Nicaragua, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Russia, Yemen, Peru, Myanmar, Belarus, Niger, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Spain, Montenegro and the Philippines (current incidents, by no means a complete list).

To arbitrarily pick one such incident, this CPJ report on the arrest of Vietnamese journalist Huynh Ngoc Tuan is chilling:

On October 7, police arrested Tuan at his home in Buon Ho town, Dak Lak province, according to news reports and CPJ’s email communication with his daughter, journalist Huynh Thuc Vy.

Tuan has been charged under Article 117 of the penal code, which criminalizes “propagandizing against the state” and carries penalties of up to 20 years in prison, those sources said.

“Huynh Ngoc Tuan’s arrest is a stark reminder of Vietnam’s intolerance for dissent,” said Shawn Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia representative. “Tuan’s independent journalism contributes balance to Vietnam’s highly censored public discourse — his detention only deepens the nation’s press freedom crisis. He should be released now.”

Tuan, an independent journalist and writer who was previously imprisoned for 10 years for his critical writings, regularly posts commentary about Vietnamese politics, human rights, and international affairs on his personal Facebook page. In 2012, he received Human Rights Watch’s Hellman/Hammett award, which recognizes persecuted writers.

Tuan and his family have long faced government harassment, including home raids, surveillance, confiscation of computers and documents, and travel restrictions, according to Vy, who recently served two years and nine months in prison for defacing a national flag.

With the ascendency of authoritarianism in the United States, America’s journalists would be wise to consider the experiences of their colleagues in other countries and develop contingency plans to protect themselves and their organizations from increased repression.

The authoritarian playbook varies, but the end result is the same.

In Hong Kong, for example, the Chinese Communist Party moved brutally to silence one independent, pro-democracy media organization. In 2021, five hundred police officers stormed the offices of Apple Daily, a popular Hong Kong newspaper, arresting five staff members and seizing computers, documents and confidential journalistic material. The publication’s crime? “Colluding with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security,” based on the government’s new National Security Law. The publisher was subsequently arrested, all financial assets seized and the newspaper shut down.

There are other, “softer” means to the same end: changing the law. This is a highly effective tactic used by such leaders as Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orban—both amended their country’s libel laws in a way that allowed the government and its allies to sue any newspaper, radio or television network, blogger, social media user or website that criticizes them.

The result has been the widespread destruction of an independent press in both countries, as media organizations, faced with astronomical legal costs and judgements, were driven into bankruptcy. In Russia, those of most strategic value were then purchased for pennies on the ruble and added to the growing pro-government chorus of media voices. Many media organizations that wished to avoid such a fate were compelled to self-censor.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin dramatically escalated its war on the press, forcing hundreds of Russian journalists to flee the country. In January 2023, the news outlet Meduza was declared an “undesirable organization”, in effect outlawing one of the country’s best-known sources of independent reporting on the Kremlin and war in Ukraine. The label effectively criminalized any collaboration with the media organization, including sharing its content, quoting its reporting, or donating money to support it.

“An especially serious limitation for journalists who must speak to sources to report the news,” Meduza stated. It described its work as “in our homeland, completely prohibited”.

Founded by Russian journalists in Riga, Latvia, in 2014, Meduza had previously been blocked by internet censors, being declared a “foreign agent” in 2021. That in effect stripped it of local advertising, forcing it to adopt crowdfunding to finance its journalism. The ruling was intended to obstruct the outlet’s continued reporting on Russia by threatening its correspondents, sources and donors with fines or criminal prosecution.

In February 2023, publisher Galina Timchenko’s iPhone was targeted with Pegasus spyware. The attack occurred a day before a conference of exiled independent Russian media that was held in Berlin that Timchenko attended; her phone could have been used to eavesdrop on journalists’ conversations during the conference.

Despite these efforts, Meduza has continued publishing and has been a vital source of independent news about Russia’s war in Ukraine and internal politics. Timchenko and her team operate in exile at significant personal and professional risk.

In the Philippines, Rappler, the independent news organization known for its fearless journalism and investigative reporting, has faced ongoing legal and political assaults since the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte. The attacks are a direct result of its critical coverage of his administration’s violent war on drugs and authoritarian abuses.

The conflict began escalating in 2018, when the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission revoked Rappler’s registration, accusing it of violating constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership. The case centered on the company’s receipt of funding from the Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment firm.

At the center of the legal attacks has been Maria Ressa, Rappler’s co-founder and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Since 2019, she has faced multiple criminal charges, including cyber libel, tax evasion, and foreign ownership violations—often filed in rapid succession and based on thin legal grounds. In 2020, she was convicted of cyber libel in a case involving a 2012 article republished with a corrected typo, even though the law was enacted after the original publication date.

Even after Duterte left office in 2022, the cases against Rappler and Ressa have continued, driven by institutions shaped by his presidency. In 2023, the SEC ordered Rappler to cease operations again, prompting further appeals.

Despite the pressure, Rappler continues to operate, documenting corruption, disinformation, and abuse of power. Its fight is widely seen as a test case for press freedom in Southeast Asia and the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of authoritarian repression.

While physical attacks, arrests and lawfare are the most visible forms of press violations, the financial condition of media organizations has been steadily deteriorating and is now a significant factor in the fight for a free press. Concentration of ownership, pressure from advertisers and donors and the defunding of public broadcasting and denial of state advertising have combined to pressure independent reporting by denying resources and promoting conflicts of interests and self censorship.

According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the economic indicator on the RSF World Press Freedom Index now stands at an unprecedented, critical low as its decline continued in 2025. The global state of press freedom, measured annually by the organization, is now classified as a “difficult situation” for the first time in the history of the Index.

Says Anne Bocandé, RSF Editorial Director:

“Without economic independence, there can be no free press. When news media are financially strained, they are drawn into a race to attract audiences at the expense of quality reporting, and can fall prey to the oligarchs and public authorities who seek to exploit them. When journalists are impoverished, they no longer have the means to resist the enemies of the press — those who champion disinformation and propaganda. The media economy must urgently be restored to a state that is conducive to journalism and ensures the production of reliable information, which is inherently costly.”

The Calm Before the Storm?

If you are feeling that the fascist event horizon seems to be drawing closer and closer with increased velocity, you are not wrong. The zone is definitely being flooded with more and more shit.

The media landscape is devolving at a quickening pace.

The pattern is a familiar one and been repeated around the world.

Media is captured through consolidation, defunding, extortion and lawfare. Authoritarian policies are introduced with devastating outcomes. Responsibility for those outcomes is then projected onto the regime’s opposition. Disinformation and confusion gradually paralyze the public discourse until the breakdown of the democratic process is achieved.

Much of Silicon Valley has capitulated or is now actively engaged directly on behalf of Trump (and their bottom line). AI, social media and VC funding are now insidious and effective tools of the far-right media infrastructure.

More and more so-called legacy corporate media is now either under the direction of MAGA or led by executives and boards operating under the delusion that keeping their head down and self-censoring will spare them from the repression ahead.

As Bernie Sanders observed: “The wealthiest person in the world, Elon Musk, owns X. The second wealthiest person in the world, Larry Ellison, owns Paramount, including CBS, and will possibly now be taking over TikTok and CNN. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post and Twitch. Mark Zuckerberg owns both Facebook and Instagram. In fact, the top five richest men in the world are ALL media owners or executives.”

Public media is under withering attack—defunded and in disarray. National Public Radio is suing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Local public and community radio and television stations are desperately trying to save jobs and programming. Some have already closed their doors.

A New York Times analysis found that 245 public stations in rural communities are at risk of closing. Those stations, often serving as lifelines in their local regions, are historically far more dependent on CPB funding than many urban stations with far larger pools of donors to draw upon. Often the only remaining source of local news in rural communities already suffering from the closure of area newspapers, these closures threaten to enlarge local news deserts.

In contrast, the MAGA media ecosystem is expansive, well funded and multi-platformed. On the digital side, human gatekeepers have left the building, replaced by politicized algorithms, bots and manipulated AI LLMs. Hate speech and moderation are lost concepts, resulting in the turbocharged reach and impact of an alphabet soup of nazis, QAnon cultists, paid influencers, foreign troll factories, next-gen Klanners and the like. AI deepfake-driven disinformation and propaganda make up a growing percentage of all internet traffic.

Filling the void on the left is an exhilarating surge of small and often newly created independent media. Passionate, hungry and opportunistic, these pro-democracy voices are often run on a shoestring and scattered across a wide array of platforms. These web sites, podcasts, videos, newsletters and blogs represent the beating heart of the first amendment. Progressives still have their own legacy media including The Nation, Mother Jones, Free Speech TV, Labor Notes, community radio and In These Times (among many others).

These voices, however, are vulnerable. Historically underfunded by progressive philanthropy and heavily dependent on subscriptions, they are highly exposed to any potential interruption or reduction in support. Predominantly utilizing corporate and for-profit platforms, they could be further compromised by the sort of algorithmic suppression they already face on platforms such as X, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube.

Of most urgent concern is the looming threat environment posed by directives contained in National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). (See Part 2, Lawfare and the War on Free Expression)

To suggest that independent pro-democracy media might be swept up as collateral damage in the approaching next wave of repression is wrong—they will be specifically targeted.

Weaponizing the Full Force of the Federal Government

In response to the post-Kirk Antifa executive order and following security memorandum, a massive redirection of resources and personnel across the federal government is quietly underway.

Senator Elissa Slotkin claimed on the floor of Congress that “The Trump administration is drawing up “secret lists of terrorist groups inside the United States.” She warned the administration had directed law enforcement agencies to “send the full force of the U.S. government against those terrorist organizations.”

“The Trump administration define[s] domestic terrorism incredibly broadly,” Slotkin said. “It suggests that any group that talks about anti-Christian values, views they don’t like on migration or race, differing views on the role of the family, religion, or morality could all be grounds for labelling an organization as domestic terrorists.”

According to a Reuters report, an Interagency Weaponization Working Group, made up of officials from the CIA, DOJ, FBI, DHS, IRS, FCC, and the Pentagon, has been surreptitiously planning a comprehensive and aggressive campaign to identify and punish Trump’s perceived enemies.

Former senior Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor described this as a whole of government campaign:

“President Trump’s “Deep State” purge has evolved into something far bigger than most observers first realized.

“The Working Group is merely one layer. Around it, Trump is constructing a larger framework, which includes the manipulation of government (sweeping purges, politically motivated prosecutions, loyalty hires); law enforcement (investigative priorities directed against Trump’s foes and away from his allies); education (attacks on America’s institutions of higher learning); media (pressure campaigns on broadcasters and online platforms that criticize the president); civil society (intimidation of NGOs and political opposition groups); and on and on.”

Back in April, Trump ordered the Justice Department to initiate investigations into Taylor (whom he labeled a “traitor”) and Christopher Krebs, former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in Trump’s first term.

Trump has ordered and celebrated Grand Jury indictments of New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey and former National Security Advisor John Bolton. Others publicly targeted but not indicted include: Adam Schiff, Lisa Cook, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, George Soros and Anthony Fauci.

The Internal Revenue Service, which has seen key leadership methodically replacedwith Trump loyalists, is also prioritizing NSPM-7 directives. It is reportedly focusing the agency’s criminal investigation division (IRS-CI) on politically motivated inquiries.

NSPM-7 orders the IRS to “take action to ensure that no tax-exempt entities are directly or indirectly financing political violence or domestic terrorism,” and to refer “such organizations, and the employees and officers of such organizations, to the Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution.”

Potential targets of this weaponization include Democratic and progressive funders and donors, pro-democracy NGO’s and media organizations tied to alleged “left-wing violence.” The impact of these investigations is intended to chill dissent and disrupt the ongoing activities of such targets.

Reuters reported the following targeting criteria mentioned in internal Trump administration documents:

• Funding or supporting progressive causes
• Advocacy on voting rights, climate change, reproductive rights, or racial justice
• Opposition to Trump administration policies
• Support for immigrant rights or civil liberties
• Work on environmental protection or climate action

Organizations and individuals mentioned by members of the administration or its allies include Open Society, Tides Foundation, Ford Foundation, Indivisible, Jewish Voice for Peace, Reid Hoffman, Act Blue, Media Matters, Southern Poverty Law Center, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the National Lawyers Guild.

On October 1 a broad coalition of nonprofit and nonpartisan organizations issued a unified statement condemning the “unjust and illegal” campaign by the Trump administration to intimidate and silence charitable groups via executive action: “The coalition signatories pledged solidarity with those targeted, reaffirming their commitment to speaking truth to power and defending the rights of all Americans, “no matter who occupies the White House.”

“Representing organizations that span the ideological spectrum and serve communities across the nation, the more than 3,700 groups warned that the administration’s actions constitute a dangerous abuse of executive power aimed at punishing dissent and undermining First Amendment protections.”

ICE and the Deportation Industrial Complex

This looming federal repression will proceed in tandem with what the Brennan Center has characterized as the emerging “deportation industrial complex.”

The Republican budget reconciliation measure passed in July more than tripled ICE’s annual budget to $27-30 billion, making it larger than the combined budgets of the FBI, DEA, ATF, Bureau of Prisons, and U.S. Marshals Service. More than the annual expenditures on all law enforcement by state and local governments in all 50 states and the District of Columbia combined.

In total, $170 billion over four years is authorized for border and interior enforcement, with a stated goal of deporting 1 million immigrants each year. The largest percentage increase goes to finding, arresting, detaining, and deporting immigrants already living in the U.S., most of whom have not committed a crime and many of whom actually possess lawful status.

According to Popular Information, new ICE spending in the small arms category from January 20, 2025, the day Trump was inaugurated, through October 18, totaled $71,515,762. Most of the spending was on guns and armor, but there have also been significant purchases of chemical weapons and “guided missile warheads and explosive components.”

This is a masked, heavily armed secret police, accountable to the President, which is abducting people off the street, including US citizens, often violently, using racial profiling blessed by the US Supreme Court.

More than 300 heavily armed federal agents, some rappelling onto the roof from Black Hawk helicopters, busted down doors throughout a five-story Chicago apartment complex in the early morning hours, dragging zip-tied residents including naked children out of their homes and holding U.S. citizens captive for hours. There were no warrants.

ProPublica conducted a special investigation which “…reviewed every case we could find of agents holding citizens against their will, whether during immigration raids or protests. While the tally is almost certainly incomplete, we found more than 170 such incidents during the first nine months of President Donald Trump’s second administration.

“Among the citizens detained are nearly 20 children, including two with cancer. That includes four who were held for weeks with their undocumented mother and without access to the family’s attorney until a congresswoman intervened.”

William G. Young, a Reagan appointed federal district court judge in Massachusetts issued a decision highly critical of the unconstitutional actions of the president.

Young is particularly disturbed by ICE agents’ use of masks, calling the government’s defense of the practice “disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.”

Young wrote:

“ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence. Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws. It should be noted that our troops do not ordinarily wear masks. Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor—and honor still matters. To us, masks are associated with cowardly desperados and the despised Ku Klux Klan. In all our history we have never tolerated an armed masked secret police.”

Reporters Under Attack

Harassment of reporters, particularly women and journalists of color, is increasing. There is a rising incidence of assaults or arrests of reporters at protests and immigration-related sites in the streets of Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and other cities. Journalists are being detained and deported.

In Los Angeles, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, “Law enforcement shot non-lethal rounds that struck multiple reporters while they covered protests… and escalated over the weekend following immigration raids. More than 20 others were reported to have been assaulted or obstructed.”

Two landmark federal lawsuits filed in Chicago and Los Angeles have exposed a systematic pattern of violence by federal agents against journalists covering ICE operations and protests, both resulting in court orders restricting the government’s use of force against the press.

Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, stated:

“Each time the community rises in protest against the federal government’s attacks on our people, DHS retaliates with sweeping, excessive force. Federal law enforcement has brutalized demonstrators, causing disorder in a circular ploy to justify deploying military domestically against now and future protesters.”

As violent and cruel as ICE actions have been to date, an ominous new purge of ICE leadership suggests that the agency is poised to become more reckless, unlawful and violent. The Trump administration has launched a sweeping change of ICE leadership, removing senior officials and replacing them with more aggressive Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Border Patrol agents.

While both agencies have participated in blue city immigration actions, it has been the CBP, under the direction of Gregory Bovino, that has been responsible for the most egregious abuses of civil liberties and instances of violence. The purge stems from administration frustration with ICE’s failure to meet aggressive deportation targets.

Mario Guevara, a Spanish-language reporter originally from El Salvador, was arrested by the Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office on June 14, 2025 while live-streaming a protest against immigration raids in Georgia. He was initially charged with three misdemeanors: unlawful assembly, obstruction, and being a pedestrian on the roadway. All criminal charges against the journalist were dismissed on July 10. Instead of releasing him, he was transferred to ICE custody. After months of court battles (he had a valid work permit), Guevara was deported to El Salvador on October 3.

British journalist Sami Hamdi was detained by ICE at the San Francisco airport on October 26 after far-right activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer accused him on social media of supporting terrorist organizations. Hamdi was on a speaking tour with a valid visa on behalf of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization. He joins numerous immigrants and travelers deported by ICE for pro-Palestinian views. (CAIR) condemned Hamdi’s detention as “a blatant affront to free speech,” attributing his arrest to his criticism of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Violence is as American as Apple Pie

You can feel it. Something big is ready to jump off.

America has grown even more toxic and tribal, if that is possible. The Resistance is growing. The President is unpopular, untethered to reality and increasingly desperate. One way or another, the center will not hold.

A defining moment of the deepening political crisis is approaching. Will it be the Epstein files? Wagging the dog in Venezuela? Or a further descent into autocracy?

Is Trump planning to wield the most dangerous concentrated power available to any U.S. president (precisely because it was designed for extreme emergencies)?

The Insurrection Act of 1807 empowers the President to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act (which prohibits the use of the US military in domestic law enforcement) and to deploy National Guard or federal troops in suppressing a domestic rebellion without congressional authorization or state consent. Within this Civil War-era statute, the definition of triggering conditions, “insurrection,” “rebellion,” “domestic violence,” is vague, placing discretion entirely with the executive.

Project 2025 called for declaring the Insurrection Act on day one.

”I’d do it if it was necessary. So far it hasn’t been necessary. But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office recently. ”If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that…” he added.

Federal judges have blocked Trump’s deployments in Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago, with three West Coast cases pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Later, aboard Air Force One, he told reporters “You know if I want to enact a certain act, I’m allowed to do it routinely.

“And I’d be allowed to do whatever I want. But we haven’t chosen to do that because we’re very well — we’re doing very well without it. But I’d be allowed to do that, you understand that, and the courts wouldn’t get involved, nobody would get involved, and I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, I can send anybody I wanted.”

Understanding the Insurrection Act’s potential is essential to understanding the real threat trajectory facing American press freedom, not as an abstract constitutional issue, but as an imminent mechanism of expanded state power.

Invoking the Insurrection Act would signal a grave new threat to democratic governance and the rule of law by further eroding judicial oversight and militarizing American cities.

No statute can override the Constitution and troops deployed under the Insurrection Act may not violate individuals’ constitutional rights. However, this is the most lawless administration in the history of the country.

Under the Act, the military could enforce curfews, restrict freedom of movement, conduct warrantless searches and seizures, suppress freedom of assembly, and restrict freedom of speech. Civilians could be detained by military personnel without civilian court oversight. While technically civilian courts would not be “suspended,” the practical effect would be the suspension of constitutional protections in militarized zones.

Military-enforced curfews and restrictions on assembly would prevent journalists from covering military operations. Military personnel could prevent media access to conflict zones, arrest journalists, seize or destroy recording equipment and suppress reporting that portrays the military negatively.

Military personnel are trained to respond to threats with force escalation; police officers are trained to use a graduated response and de-escalation. Peaceful protesters, journalists, and bystanders could be subjected to lethal force under military rules of engagement. Military officers ordered to conduct unconstitutional operations would face a choice between violating their oath to the Constitution or refusing presidential orders.

The assault or detention of US citizens under such a scenario would be guaranteed to trigger an escalation of protest, risking a dangerous cycle of protest and suppression.

As the 2026 mid-term elections approach, troops in blue cities could be utilized as instruments of voter intimidation and suppression. (If in fact the real motive is to introduce military rule into that critical election, then invoking the Insurrection Act at this time could prove premature.)

Based on a recent executive order, the Pentagon has directed all states, the District of Columbia and all territories to form new “quick reaction forces” trained in “riot control” and the use of batons, body shields, tasers, and pepper spray, according to a report in the Guardian. Such a new national force of 23,500 troops could be deployed by the president under the Insurrection Act.

Robert Reich believes that there is a plan, plainly visible, that is already well along:

The first step has been for the Department of Homeland Security to deploy ICE agents to use aggressive tactics in targeted cities.

The second step is for such aggressive tactics to provoke demonstrations, and for Trump to exaggerate the scale and severity of them.

The third step is for Trump and Hegseth to deploy federalized National Guard troops to control the demonstrators, an act that’s already enflaming the public and provoking some actual violence.

The fourth step will be for Trump and Hegseth to invoke the Insurrection Act.

State Repression, Vigilante Violence

Federal, state and local governments have historically been serial and determined violators of press freedom. Since its founding, the United States has been punctuated by periods of paranoia and aggressive political repression of the fourth estate.

Attacks on the American press have often been initiated by government agencies and officials during a time of war or (real or imagined) national emergency. Other, more violent attacks have originated from informal “militias” and vigilantes.

Those who believe that the First Amendment has been and will continue to be a mighty shield to protect freedom of expression and of the press should take a closer read of the historical record. In this regard, as with so many other things, American exceptionalism is simply not a thing.

Governmental Repression of the American Press

• Zenger Libel Case (1734–1735) – John Peter Zenger, a New York printer, was jailed for eight months and tried for seditious libel after publishing material critical of Governor William Cosby. He was eventually acquitted, establishing an early precedent for press freedom.

• Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) – The Federalist administration under President John Adams criminalized printing “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government. Seventeen indictments and ten convictions were secured, nearly all against Democratic-Republican editors and publishers. President Thomas Jefferson issued pardons after taking office in 1801.

• Abolitionist Mail Suppression (1830s–1860s) – The U.S. Postmaster General systematically refused to allow mail carriers to transport abolitionist pamphlets to the South, effectively censoring anti-slavery speech.

• Civil War Press Suppression (1861) – Union military authorities under Abraham Lincoln arrested newspaper editors and publishers for disloyalty and shut down their presses. Frank Key Howard, editor of Baltimore’s Daily Exchange, was arrested in September 1861 and held as a political prisoner for publishing anti-administration editorials.

• Motion Picture Censorship (1915–1952) – The Supreme Court ruled in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) that motion pictures were commerce, not art, and thus unprotected by the First Amendment. This ruling was not overturned until Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952).

• Espionage and Sedition Acts (1917–1918) – Under President Woodrow Wilson, the Espionage Act (1917) criminalized speech interfering with the military. The Sedition Act (1918) expanded this to prohibit “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government, its flag, or armed forces. Targets of the Palmer Raids, over 2,000 individuals were prosecuted, with sentences ranging from 5 to 20 years imprisonment. Many more were deported. Over 22 Socialist newspapers, including Max Eastman’s The Masses, had issues banned from the mail.

• Censorship Office Established (1941) – President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, establishing the Office of Censorship with absolute discretionary power to censor international communications. Byron Price served as Director of Censorship. Rather than government officials pre-reviewing all articles, journalists were expected to self-censor or consult the Office before publishing sensitive material.

• Smith Act Prosecutions (1940–1957) – The Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) criminalized advocating the overthrow of the government. Hundreds of alleged Communists were prosecuted between 1941 and 1957. Prosecutors used Communist Party books, pamphlets, magazines, and newspapers as evidence of conspiracy. The Daily Worker and other communist publications were not formally banned but became effectively suppressed.

• Wilhelm Reich Book Burning (1956) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration destroyed six tons of Wilhelm Reich’s books in what The Guardian has called “the only federally sanctioned book burning on American soil.” Reich died in prison of heart failure in 1957, just over a year after the burning began.

• Germ Warfare Reporting Prosecution (1954) – Journalist John W. Powell was indicted on 13 sedition counts, along with his two editors, for reporting that the U.S. was conducting germ warfare in Korea. All defendants were acquitted over six years, but Powell was blackballed from journalism for life.

Civil Rights and Counterculture Era (1960s–1970s)

• Civil Rights Press Violence (1960s) – Journalists covering Southern civil rights protests were beaten, assaulted, arrested and had their cameras smashed. Southern officials filed 17 libel suits seeking over $288 million in damages by 1964 to intimidate the press. The landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case resulted from this litigation, establishing baseline First Amendment protections for the press.

• Chicano Moratorium Massacre (1970) – During a peaceful anti-war march on August 29, 1970, with 20,000–30,000 participants (the largest Mexican-American demonstration to that date), Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies fired tear gas and attacked demonstrators with batons, killing four people including Los Angeles Times columnist Ruben Salazar.

• FBI COINTELPRO Operations (1968–early 1970s) – The FBI systematically targeted alternative newspapers under COINTELPRO. The Huston Plan authorized mail opening, electronic surveillance, break-ins, and campus infiltration of underground publishers. Underground newspapers faced surveillance, harassment, unlawful searches, sabotage and equipment seizures that financially destroyed many publications.

• Black Panther Party Surveillance (Through 1978) – The Black Panther Black Community News Service continued publication despite constant FBI surveillance, state prosecution for “seditious activities,” leadership assassinations, incarceration and sabotage. Government pressure eventually forced the newspaper to emphasize survival programs rather than confrontational activism.

• Pentagon Papers (1971) – The Nixon administration attempted to prevent The New York Times from publishing the classified Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, threatening treason charges under the Espionage Act. The Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States in favor of the newspaper.

• “Seven Dirty Words” Indecency Ruling (1978) – The Supreme Court in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation upheld FCC censorship of George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” monologue, establishing indecency standards for broadcast media.

Modern Era (2010–Present)

• Whistleblower Prosecutions (2010-) – Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Reality Winner are some of the highest profile whistleblowers targeted by multiple administrations for making classified documents revealing military and intelligence community wrongdoing available to the public. Each of these cases involved intense legal battles and sparked worldwide debate on government secrecy and the rights of whistleblowers.
• SESTA/FOSTA (2018) – Congress passed the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act and the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, which criminalized online advertisements of prostitution and lifted immunity for interactive services. A Washington D.C. circuit court upheld the law in July 2023 despite First Amendment challenges from the Woodhull Freedom Foundation and Human Rights Watch.
• Capitol Riot/Insurrection (2021) – As Trump supporters breached Capitol security and stormed the building, a coordinated assault on journalists and their equipment unfolded outside the building. Rioters made a noose out of camera cables and hung it from a tree near the Capitol while screaming “get out of here” and “we are the news now.” Inside the Capitol, rioters carved “MURDER THE MEDIA” into a door. The attacks were the largest assault on the press during a single event in recent American history.

• Florida Book Banning Campaign (2023–2025) – Under Governors Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis, Florida launched the most extensive book banning campaign in modern American history. By 2023–2024, over 4,500 titles were removed from school libraries—accounting for half of all U.S. book removals. Targets included LGBTQ+ literature, racial justice narratives, sexual abuse survivor stories and literary classics. The campaign systematically erased narratives about marginalized communities from public school libraries.

Case Study: The Masses

The period from 1917 to 1920 witnessed an unprecedented assault on American press freedom when the federal government weaponized the Espionage Act and Sedition Act to silence dissenting voices opposing U.S. involvement in World War I. At the center of this crackdown stood The Masses, a socialist magazine edited by Max Eastman that had become a vital outlet for radical art, politics, and literature.

After Congress passed the Espionage Act in June 1917, Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson seized the August 1917 issue of The Masses for its anti-war content, including poetry, editorials, cartoons, and letters from conscientious objectors. Though a federal judge initially ruled in favor of the magazine’s right to publish, the government’s relentless assault continued. Seven staff members—including Eastman, Floyd Dell, John Reed, and Art Young—were indicted on charges of conspiring to obstruct military recruitment and enlistment, facing potential prison sentences of up to twenty years. The prosecution’s case rested on criminalizing the act of publishing anti-war content itself, treating editorial decisions as acts of sabotage against the war effort.

The magazine published its final issue in 1917, silenced not by criminal conviction but by bureaucratic strangulation. Beyond The Masses, the federal government prosecuted over 2,000 individuals under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, securing more than 1,000 convictions—making this the largest sustained assault on press freedom in American history. Socialist publications were the primary targets of Postmaster General Burleson’s censorship, with at least twenty-two anti-war newspapers banned from the mail entirely.

The broader campaign against socialist and anti-war press paralleled the persecution of prominent political figures who dared to challenge the war. Eugene V. Debs, the four-time Socialist presidential candidate, was arrested on June 30, 1918, for his Canton, Ohio speech criticizing the war and expressing solidarity with imprisoned conscientious objectors. Convicted under the Sedition Act and sentenced to ten years in prison, Debs served from 1919 until 1921. He received nearly one million votes in his 1920 presidential campaign run from his jail cell.

Similarly, Victor Berger, a Socialist congressman and editor of the Milwaukee Leader, had his publication’s mailing privileges revoked and was convicted on charges related to five anti-war editorials he had written. Subsequently, his seat in Congress was denied to him even after his election in 1918, with the House voting to disqualify him as an enemy sympathizer. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, publishers of Mother Earth magazine and organizers of the No-Conscription League, were convicted, imprisoned, and then deported to Soviet Russia in 1919 in an extreme act of government retaliation.

These interconnected prosecutions, mail suppressions, and deportations represented a coordinated assault on press freedom that did not distinguish between violent sedition and non-violent political criticism. The Supreme Court’s validation of these prosecutions in cases like Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States provided legal legitimacy to what amounted to the criminalization of journalism and dissent itself.

Vigilante Violence Against the Press

Vigilante violence against journalists has historically served to silence dissenting voices, protect established power structures, and intimidate communities seeking to use the press as a tool for social change. Far too often, the violence was extreme and the perpetrators never brought to justice. In many instances, the repression extended beyond individual acts of violence to encompass systematic campaigns combining government action, police complicity and vigilante violence.

Antebellum and Civil War Era (1835–1860s)

• Cherokee Phoenix Seizure (1835) – The Georgia Guard, a state militia unit organized to police Cherokee territory claimed by Georgia, seized the printing press of the Cherokee Phoenix, the first newspaper published by Native Americans in the United States. The seizure occurred amid escalating tensions over Cherokee sovereignty and removal following the Indian Removal Act.

• William Lloyd Garrison Mob Attack (October 21, 1835) – A Boston mob seized prominent white abolitionist and editor of The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison, dragged him through the streets with a rope around his waist, and threatened to lynch him. Police rescued Garrison and held him overnight in jail. He fled Boston the following morning.

• Elijah Parish Lovejoy Murder (November 7, 1837) – Pro-slavery mobs killed Elijah Parish Lovejoy, a Presbyterian minister, abolitionist and editor of The Alton Observer, during an attack on his warehouse in Alton, Illinois. His printing press had been destroyed three times previously by mobs and thrown into the Mississippi River. Lovejoy became the first American journalist martyred in defense of press freedom.

• Lawrence, Kansas Raid (May 21, 1856) – Pro-slavery settlers attacked and ransacked Lawrence, Kansas, a town founded by anti-slavery Massachusetts settlers. The attack destroyed the printing presses and offices of two Free-State newspapers—the Kansas Free State and the Herald of Freedom—halting production and threatening the staff.

Jim Crow and Labor Era (1898–1921)

• Wilmington Daily Record Destruction (November 10, 1898) – White supremacists set fire to the offices of the African American–owned Wilmington Daily Record in Wilmington, North Carolina, destroying its press during the Wilmington massacre—a white supremacist coup d’état that overthrew the city’s elected biracial government.

• Victor Daily Record Suppression (June 1904) – During the Colorado Labor Wars (1903–1904), mixed posses of Colorado National Guard members, deputies, and Citizens’ Alliance vigilantes shut down the pro-union newspaper the Victor Daily Record, destroyed its office and machinery, and arrested its staff. The violence targeted labor organizing by gold and silver miners and mill workers.

• Tulsa Race Massacre (May 31–June 1, 1921) – White mobs rampaged through Greenwood, Oklahoma (“Black Wall Street”), a thriving African American business district, for 18 hours, tossing Molotov cocktails and torching churches and hospitals. Nearly 300 Black residents were killed and thousands were forced to flee. The African American newspaper the Tulsa Star was destroyed in the violence.

Right-Wing Violence Against the Press and Journalists (1960s–1990s)

• KPFT Radio Station Bombings (May 12 and October 6, 1970) – The KKK, led by Grand Dragon Jimmy Dale Hutto, bombed Houston’s Pacifica radio station KPFT twice in its first year of operation. The first bombing forced the station off the air for three weeks; the second caused more severe damage, forcing a three-month shutdown. Hutto also plotted to bomb Pacifica stations in Berkeley and Los Angeles, indicating a coordinated campaign against progressive radio.

• Secret Army Organization Attacks on San Diego Underground Press (1971–1972) – A right-wing paramilitary group called the Secret Army Organization (SAO), financed and armed by the FBI according to ACLU documentation, conducted multiple attacks on the underground newspaper The Door. Attacks included office raids, firebombing a staff member’s vehicle, and shooting reporter Paula Thorp. FBI agents concealed evidence and allegedly directed assassination plots against anti-war activists. The SAO also published activists’ addresses for purposes of intimidation.

• Alan Berg Murder (June 18, 1984) – Denver talk radio host Alan Berg was assassinated outside his home by members of the white supremacist group The Order. Berg was shot 12 times with a semi-automatic weapon. Members stated Berg was targeted because he was “anti-white” and Jewish. Two perpetrators were convicted; the group’s leader died in a federal shootout.

A closer look at two of these more recent attacks is revealing.

On May 12, 1970, Pacifica’s listener-supported community radio station in Houston had been on the air for just two months when an explosion demolished KPFT’s transmitter. The new station was forced off the air for three weeks. On October 6, 1970, after the community had come together and crowdfunded the replacement of the transmitter, there was a second bombing which destroyed the new transmitter with significantly more damage. This time the station was taken off the air for three months. Weirdly, at the time of both bombings the station was broadcasting Arlo Guthrie’s anti-war song Alice’s Restaurant.

During the period of the bombings, the KKK was experiencing a resurgence in America, particularly in southern states like Texas. The Klan in the lone star state viewed Civil Rights era legislation and the influx of Vietnamese fishermen along the Texas coast as threats to white supremacy. KKK Grand Dragon Jimmy Dale Hutto was arrested and convicted in the bombings, as well as for plotting to blow up two other Pacifica station—KPFA in Berkeley and KPFK in Los Angeles.

Court testimony revealed that the KKK targeted KPFT specifically because of its progressive political programming and commitment to free speech, which challenged white supremacist ideology. It is the only American radio station to be literally blown off the air. When the station returned to the air in January 1971, Arlo Guthrie performed in the studio to finish“Alice’s Restaurant” in person.

In June of 1984, liberal radio host Alan Berg was gunned down in the driveway of his Denver home in a carefully planned ambush. Investigations later found that members of The Order, a far-right white supremacist terrorist organization, were responsible.

Berg was known for his provocative style on KOA radio, where he regularly confronted racists, anti-Semites, and far-right extremists on air. A Jewish former attorney turned broadcaster, Berg used his platform to ridicule bigotry and expose growing fascist undercurrents in America’s far-right subculture.

“Ready to be Called to Action”

The murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has provided a pretext for a new phase of repression and retaliation, potentially serving as an American Reichstag event that could shift the national trajectory in a jarring and violent manner.

“His murder,” said Chris Hedges, “has given the movement he represented — grounded in Christian nationalism — a martyr. Martyrs are the lifeblood of violent movements. Any flinching over the use of violence, any talk of compassion or understanding, any effort to mediate or discuss, is a betrayal of the martyr and the cause the martyr died defending.”

“For years those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals,” Trump posted to his Truth Social account. “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in the country today.”

While serving as guest host of the Charlie Kirk podcast, J.D. Vance promised to “work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism in our own country.” The vice-president was joined on Kirk’s podcast by Stephen Miller, who vowed to target what he called the “vast domestic terrorist network” he blamed for Kirk’s death.

“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, homeland security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” Miller said. “It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”

Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes, whose Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy conviction was commuted by Trump earlier this year, announced on Infowars that it was time to restart his militia group in order to provide public protection for figures like Kirk.

Rhodes then called on Trump to “do what’s right, what’s necessary” and “invoke the Insurrection Act” in the wake of the shooting. “You should declare the left in this country is in obvious open rebellion against the law of the United States. They’re committing insurrection, they’re aiding and abetting an invasion, and they’re blocking the execution of federal law,” Rhodes said.

The Observer (UK) reported:

Since Kirk’s killing, extremism monitors have documented a rise in recruitment and mobilisation efforts by groups across the far-right spectrum, from libertarian militias such as the Virginia Kekoas to neo-Fascist groups such as Patriot Front.

The far-right Proud Boys group is organising a campaign identifying leftwing activists celebrating Kirk’s death…

“I did see at least a dozen efforts by people to start a new militia group immediately following Kirk’s assassination,” said Amy Cooter, deputy director at the Institute for Countering Digital Extremism and an expert on US militia movements.

Cooter said it was too early to tell if any of the new or reactivated groups would prove influential. But she said some movements seemed to be preparing in case of any signal from Trump they were needed, for example if he contested the results of the midterm elections next year, or in the event of large protests.

“A lot of them are ready to be called to action,” she said. “They don’t quite feel called, as of this moment, but are primed to be put into some kind of position to do so.”

A History of Violence

More broadly, violence from the Right has been endemic to American society. There is a long and terrible history of domestic terrorism including white supremacist attacks, Klan violence, political assassinations in the sixties and, more recently, the Oklahoma City bombing, the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, Cliven Bundy’s armed stand-off over federal lands and the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol.

The country is experiencing an ongoing plague of stochastic terrorism perpetrated by lone gunmen animated by hate speech and far-right propaganda. Incidents include the murder of nine Black churchgoers in Charleston, eleven Jewish worshipers in Pittsburgh, twenty-three primarily Latinx Walmart shoppers in El Paso and ten Black grocery shoppers in Buffalo.

On June 14, Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated by a right-wing vigilante with an extensive hit list of additional targets. A Democratic state senator and his wife were wounded by the same shooter. Hortman was a veteran of state politics and a fierce advocate for reproductive rights and progressive causes.

The sweeping January 6th pardons are widely viewed as vindication by those who attacked law enforcement and the press at the Capitol that day. The pardons have provided the opportunity for paramilitary groups involved to regroup and begin preparations for future actions. Some are now part of the masked ICE teams unlawfully attacking, detaining and disappearing people with impunity.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center there are as many as 1371 white nationalist, anti-government hate and extremist groups in the US and an estimated 50 far-right militias in America. There are more formally organized groups such as the Proud Boys, The 3 Percenters and Oath Keepers.

These groups have undergone a shift from top-down, leader-centric organizational models to more localized cell structures with multiple leaders working “in tandem”

But there are countless more lone MAGA “patriots,” unaffiliated with any group, but armed and psychologically prepped for a fight if given the green light by Trump. These armed citizens are close to the ground, grass-roots and integrated into neighborhoods and local communities.

America is awash in guns—there are an estimated 393 million guns in circulation, 741,000 of them fully automatic weapons. Vending machines selling ammunition are now allowed in some grocery stores in Alabama, Texas and Oklahoma.

A recent NPR/PBS News/Marist poll found an overwhelming majority of Americans think political violence is a major problem.

But nearly a third of Americans – 30% – say people may have to resort to violence in order to get the country back on track. It’s a sharp rise from 18 months ago, when 19% of Americans said the same.

The belief that violence may be the answer has grown among Republicans and Independents —up 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, since April last year. But the largest increase has been among Democrats. Now 28% of Democrats share that view, up 16 points.

Safety, Solidarity, and Exile

If the Insurrection Act is invoked, pro-democracy media organizations could face dangerous new levels of repression and violence, as could many other vulnerable communities and groups.

There is, however, a vital and comprehensive network of institutions around the world dedicated to promoting free expression, and supporting media organizations and journalists who are under threat.

Together, these organizations offer a multi-layered safety net: from preventive training and newsroom accountability to crisis intervention and global solidarity. Institutional backing, public advocacy, and coordinated emergency response are pillars of defending press freedom in the 21st century.

Organizations like Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and coalitions of media support groups such as Journalists in Distress (JiD) (among many others) are performing extraordinary work providing aid to journalists in conflict zones and those facing authoritarian repression.

While much of their work is currently centered outside of North America, going forward they will likely need to redirect more of their focus and resources toward supporting journalists and media organizations in the United States.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) provides a wide range of services and programs designed to protect journalists from threats, harassment, imprisonment, and violence, especially in repressive or conflict-torn environments.

One of CPJ’s core functions is its Emergency Assistance Program, which offers direct support to journalists in crisis. This includes financial aid for medical treatment, legal defense, relocation, and temporary housing. CPJ coordinates with local and international partners to ensure the safety and survival of at-risk journalists and their families.

In addition to emergency aid, CPJ engages in advocacy and policy work, pressuring governments and institutions to respect press freedom and release imprisoned journalists. The organization maintains a global database of press freedom violations, documenting killings, attacks, and detentions to ensure accountability and transparency.

CPJ’s work is based on its research, which provides a global snapshot of obstructions to a free press worldwide. CPJ’s research staff documents hundreds of attacks on the press each year. In our quest for a free media, CPJ denounces press freedom violations, meets with heads of state and high-ranking officials, spearheads or advises on diplomatic efforts, and works with other organizations to ensure that justice prevails when journalists are imprisoned or killed. CPJ also provides comprehensive, life-saving support to journalists and media support staff working around the world through up-to-date safety and security information and rapid response assistance.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) is dedicated to protecting and defending journalism, particularly in the digital age. Its services and programs focus on press freedom advocacy, secure communication technologies, journalist training, legal support, and public education. FPF’s work is especially critical in an era of increasing surveillance, government secrecy, and threats to investigative reporting.

One of FPF’s cornerstone initiatives is the development of SecureDrop, an open-source, encrypted whistleblower submission system used by leading media outlets. SecureDrop enables journalists to receive documents and tips anonymously and securely, offering protection for sources in high-risk situations.

FPF also provides digital security training for journalists and newsrooms, teaching best practices in encryption, secure communications, and threat modeling. These trainings are tailored to address the growing risks posed by hacking, surveillance, and data breaches—especially for investigative journalists, freelancers, and those reporting in repressive environments.

FPF co-manages the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a unique and comprehensive database that documents press freedom violations from arrests and equipment seizures to assaults and subpoenas.

At Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), we build secure communications tools used by many of the world’s top investigative news organizations. We teach journalists how to keep themselves and their sources safe in the digital age. We monitor and document virtually every press freedom violation in the U.S. And we engage in advocacy to defend the public’s right to know. In defense of democracy, we protect press freedom.

The Journalists in Distress Network (JiD) is a broad coalition of international organizations committed to providing emergency assistance to journalists facing severe threats due to their work. JiD is a coordination mechanism through which press freedom and journalist-support NGOs share information and mobilize aid for reporters in crisis.

JiD’s services cover a wide range of needs that arise from political persecution, physical violence, legal harassment, exile, or imprisonment. Its primary function is to ensure that journalists in urgent situations receive timely, well-coordinated, and context-appropriate support—often when their lives or freedoms are at immediate risk.

The Journalists in Distress (JiD) Network is an informal forum for sharing information on journalists in distress and developing joint initiatives for emergency response. It was formed in 2006 to allow international organisations with freedom of expression mandates to more easily discuss specific cases, coordinate joint efforts, and avoid duplication. The Network does not engage in advocacy or media development.

While it is late, a basic safety strategic plan for pro-democracy media and values-aligned NGO’s in the current volatile threat environment is imperative and might include:

• Conduct a risk assessment audit and business continuity review
• Train and educate staff around security and safety
• Establish and practice emergency protocols (communication, exit paths, etc.)
• Establish emergency medical protocols (posted and practiced)
• Physical Security Audit: Building security, office access and perimeter security including parking and transit routes
• Cybersecurity Audit: Review of vulnerabilities and implementation of various cyber tools and procedures where required
• Network with partner organizations for sharing of best practices and possible cost sharing

In addition, a strategic plan, if threats, harassment or the potential of physical attacks are present, might include:

• Work at home protocols
• Hardening of doors and windows (bulletproof and explosion resistant)
• Armed security
• Office and staff relocation to a “blue” state or city
• Liaison with local law enforcement (a sensitive process for BIPOC staff in particular)
• Exile

If staff and board members are facing doxing, harassment, threats and the possibility of assault or detention, some reporters and their families may well be compelled to pursue relocation to a safer community in their state or another state. If the threat is federal in nature or involves paramilitary entities active in multiple states, Canada or another country may be considered as safe havens.

Fleeing from your home country is a traumatic, life changing decision. It is a decision that journalists speaking truth to power around the world have too often been forced to make. It is almost inconceivable to most Americans to even consider the possibility that the situation in their country could ever warrant such an extreme choice.

In such situations, it would be imperative that beyond insuring the safety of the journalist and their family, that they be provided the support and resources necessary to enable them to continue their work. There are numerous successful precedents of media organizations forced into exile being stood up and continuing to project content back into their home country.

In such a scenario, the goals of the relocation might include:

1. Support the movement of the targeted person and their family to a safe country,
2. Provide support for housing, medical, food and counseling, and
3. Provide the tools needed to resume their work to support the resistance movement in America.