Punishing the Press, Critics and Institutions

Pressure on Reporters

Trump Threatened a Reporter With Jail, and the FBI Seized Another Reporter's Files

Select a Section to Explore

Chapter 1 — The FBI Took a Reporter's Working Files

Chapter 2 — The Leak Hunt Reached Reporters, and Trump Demanded Sources

Chapter 3 — The Pressure Went Beyond Leak Cases

Chapter 4 — Public Power Used to Constrain Independent Reporting

1 · The FBI Took a Reporter's Working Files

1 · The FBI Took a Reporter's Working Files — select a subtopic

1.1 — Two Judges Refused to Let the Government Search Her Files

1 · The FBI Took a Reporter's Working Files

1.1 · The FBI Took a Reporter's Working Files

Two Judges Refused to Let the Government Search Her Files

The FBI seized Hannah Natanson's devices in a leak investigation. She said her sources went silent and she could not gather information or publish; a judge found that the seizure restrained her First Amendment rights. Two judges required judicial review of her files rather than the government's proposed search. Their rulings did not invalidate the search of her home or the warrant.

Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 16

The Court finds that seizing the totality of a reporter’s electronic work product, including tools essential to ongoing newsgathering, constitutes a restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter · February 24, 2026

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Memorandum Opinion and Order, In the Matter of the Search of the Real Property and Premises of Hannah Natanson, No. 1:26-sw-00054-WBP (E.D. Va.), ECF 62 (Feb. 24, 2026) (Porter, M.J.)

[2]Memorandum Opinion and Order, In the Matter of the Search of the Real Property and Premises of Hannah Natanson, No. 1:26-sw-00054 (WBP-AJT) (E.D. Va.), ECF 122 (May 4, 2026) (Trenga, J.)

2 · The Leak Hunt Reached Reporters, and Trump Demanded Sources

2 · The Leak Hunt Reached Reporters, and Trump Demanded Sources — select a subtopic

2.1 — Bondi Removed Limits on Compelling Reporters' Records

2.2 — Trump Said to Give Up the Source or Go to Jail

2 · The Leak Hunt Reached Reporters, and Trump Demanded Sources

2.1 · The Leak Hunt Reached Reporters, and Trump Demanded Sources

Bondi Removed Limits on Compelling Reporters' Records

Attorney General Pamela Bondi rescinded limits on obtaining reporters' records and testimony in leak investigations. The replacement rule lets the Attorney General authorize subpoenas to journalists and demands for their communications records. Advance-notice rules and a federal law protecting reporting materials remained in force.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[3]Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Memorandum for All Department Employees, "Updated Policy Regarding Obtaining Information From, or Records of, Members of the News Media" (Apr. 25, 2025)

[5]Department of Justice, final rule, "Policy Regarding Obtaining Information From, or Records of, Members of the News Media; and Regarding Questioning, Arresting, or Charging Members of the News Media," 90 Fed. Reg. 18785 (May 2, 2025) (Docket No. OAG193; AG Order No. 6251-2025)

[6]Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 690 (1972) (United States Reports, Library of Congress)

[7]Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 670 (1991) (United States Reports, Library of Congress)

2.2 · The Leak Hunt Reached Reporters, and Trump Demanded Sources

Trump Said to Give Up the Source or Go to Jail

Trump said the government would tell a media company that published a leak to give up its source or go to jail, and that the reporter would go to jail if he did not say who supplied it. He named no outlet. CNN reported that he personally pushed the acting Attorney General to subpoena reporters. The Justice Department withdrew subpoenas to Post and Wall Street Journal reporters without compelling their testimony, CNN reported.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[4]"TRANSCRIPT: President Trump Holds a Press Conference at the White House, 4.6.26," published by the Senate Democratic Caucus (democrats.senate.gov)

[8]Order and Report and Recommendation, United States v. Joshua Doyle, No. 26-MJ-80 (D. Minn.), ECF 39 (May 13, 2026), at n.4

[9]U.S. Department of Justice, historical biography, "Attorney General: Pamela J. Bondi" (page updated May 28, 2026), as captured Oct. 10, 2026

[10]"Trump's DOJ withdrew subpoenas targeting Washington Post and WSJ reporters," CNN (June 23, 2026)

[11]Order, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated July 10, 2026, No. 26-mc-352 (AS) (S.D.N.Y.), ECF 38 (July 23, 2026) (Subramanian, J.)

[12]Cristina Stassis and Ismail Shakil (Reuters), "US creates task force to prosecute leaks to news media, Hegseth says," Military Times (July 13, 2026)

[13]U.S. Department of Justice, "Meet the Attorney General" (official biography of Todd Blanche), as captured Oct. 10, 2026

3 · The Pressure Went Beyond Leak Cases

3 · The Pressure Went Beyond Leak Cases — select a subtopic

3.1 — Two Journalists Were Indicted After Five Warrants Were Refused

3.2 — The Pentagon Lost on Its Credential Policy and Won an Escort Stay

3 · The Pressure Went Beyond Leak Cases

3.1 · The Pressure Went Beyond Leak Cases

Two Journalists Were Indicted After Five Warrants Were Refused

Don Lemon and Georgia Fort face two federal felony charges arising from a church protest they were covering. A magistrate judge found no probable cause to arrest them; the district's chief judge said there was no evidence they had committed or conspired to commit a crime. One appeals judge disagreed, and a grand jury later indicted them. Their dismissal motions remained unresolved on the docket through October 6, 2026.

Further response to the petition for mandamus, paragraph 3

The government lumps all eight protestors together and says things that are true of some but not all of them. Two of the five protestors were not protestors at all; instead, they were a journalist and his producer. There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.

Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz · January 23, 2026

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[14]Docket, United States v. Levy-Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM (D. Minn.), CourtListener

[20]Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Issuance of Arrest Warrants, In re Criminal Complaint / In re United States of America, No. 26-1135 (8th Cir.) (Jan. 2026)

[21]Don Lemon and Georgia Fort's Joint Motion to Disclose Grand Jury Proceedings, United States v. Levy-Armstrong, No. 26-cr-00025 (D. Minn.), ECF 125 (Feb. 13, 2026)

[22]Further response of Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz to the petition for mandamus, filed in In re United States of America, No. 26-1135 (8th Cir.) (Jan. 23, 2026)

[23]Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, entry for Patrick Joseph Schiltz

[24]Judgment, In re United States of America, No. 26-1135 (8th Cir. Jan. 23, 2026) (Kelly, Grasz and Kobes, JJ.; Grasz, J., concurring in the judgment)

[25]U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, "Cities Church Case Information" (United States v. Levy-Armstrong et al., District of Minnesota 26-CR-25)

[26]Order, United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 26-cr-25 (LMP/DLM) (D. Minn.), ECF 540 (June 10, 2026) (Micko, M.J.)

[27]Order for In Camera Review, United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 26-cr-25 (LMP/DLM) (D. Minn.), ECF 631 (Aug. 18, 2026) (Provinzino, J.)

[28]Docket, United States v. Levy-Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM (D. Minn.), CourtListener, newest entries first, as captured Oct. 10, 2026 (latest entry Oct. 6, 2026)

3.2 · The Pressure Went Beyond Leak Cases

The Pentagon Lost on Its Credential Policy and Won an Escort Stay

Most credentialed Pentagon reporters refused to sign the new policy acknowledgment; seven Times journalists returned their passes. Judge Friedman held its challenged provisions unconstitutional, finding that it discriminated against reporters unwilling to publish favorable coverage. The government has appealed that judgment. Separately, it won an appellate stay that leaves an escort requirement enforceable.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[15]Opinion, N.Y. Times Co. v. Department of Defense, No. 25-4218 (PLF) (D.D.C.), ECF 35 (Friedman, J.) (Mar. 20, 2026)

[29]Docket, The New York Times Company v. Department of Defense, No. 1:25-cv-04218 (D.D.C.), CourtListener

[30]Reply Brief for Appellants, N.Y. Times Co. v. Department of Defense, No. 26-5113 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 5, 2026)

[31]Opinion, N.Y. Times Co. v. Department of Defense, No. 26-1690 (PLF) (D.D.C.), ECF 17 (Friedman, J.) (June 30, 2026)

[32]Order, N.Y. Times Co. v. Department of Defense, No. 26-5253 (D.C. Cir. July 16, 2026) (per curiam; Henderson, Millett and Garcia, JJ.; Garcia, J., dissenting)

[33]Clerk's Order scheduling oral argument, N.Y. Times Co. v. Department of Defense, No. 26-5113 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 18, 2026)

[34]Clerk's Order scheduling oral argument, N.Y. Times Co. v. Department of Defense, No. 26-5253 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 18, 2026)