1. Case Studies of Press Freedom

The early months of President Trump's second term have witnessed several significant developments affecting press freedom in the United States. These incidents illustrate ongoing tensions between the administration and media organizations.

• Strategic Litigation Against Media Organizations

In late October 2024, then-candidate Trump filed a $10 million lawsuit against CBS News over the editing of a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris, claiming the edit was "partisan" and constituted "unlawful acts of election and voter interference." This legal strategy intensified following his return to office in 2025, with multiple cabinet officials filing defamation claims against news outlets that published investigative reports about the administration. Media advocacy groups have characterized these as "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPPs) designed primarily to intimidate rather than seek legitimate legal remedies, noting smaller news organizations have been particularly affected, with some abandoning investigative projects specifically to avoid potential litigation.

• Associated Press Access Restrictions

In March 2025, the White House implemented restrictive measures against the Associated Press after the AP maintained its own stylistic guidelines regarding terminology for a disputed geographic region rather than adopting the administration's preferred language. AP journalists were excluded from key White House events, including background briefings and presidential travel pools, with the Press Secretary stating that media organizations "unwilling to report accurately" would face "appropriate consequences." Experts have noted that these policies represent a troubling attempt to control not just access to information but also the framing of reporting. Actions like barring outlets for refusing to adopt specific terminology (e.g., "Gulf of America" instead of "Gulf of Mexico") highlight efforts to dictate language in journalism.

2. International Law Framework for Freedom of Expression

International law provides robust protections for freedom of expression, particularly for journalists and press organizations, while acknowledging certain limited restrictions.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) establishes that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." While the UDHR is not legally binding, its principles have been incorporated into customary international law.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the United States ratified in 1992, provides legally binding protections. Article 19 of the ICCPR specifically protects the "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of choice."

International law does recognize that freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions, but these must meet a strict three-part test:

1. Legality: Restrictions must be provided by law with sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly.

2. Legitimacy: Restrictions must pursue one of the legitimate aims specified in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, namely: respect for the rights or reputations of others, or protection of national security, public order, public health, or morals.

3. Necessity and Proportionality: Restrictions must be necessary in a democratic society and proportional to the interest being protected.

The UN Human Rights Committee has emphasized that this three-part test sets a high threshold and that states should not invoke national security concerns as a justification for restricting freedom of expression unless they can demonstrate a specific risk of serious harm.

3. U.S. Legal Protections for Press Freedom and Legitimate Restrictions

The primary source of press freedom protection in the United States is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This protection has been interpreted extensively by the Supreme Court to provide robust safeguards against government interference with press activities.

In landmark cases such as New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (the "Pentagon Papers" case), the Supreme Court established a heavy presumption against prior restraint of publication. Similarly, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court established heightened protections for reporting on public officials, requiring proof of "actual malice" for defamation claims.

Despite strong protections, U.S. law does recognize certain legitimate restrictions on press freedom:

• National Security: Under certain narrowly defined circumstances, the government may prevent publication of information that would cause "direct, immediate, and irreparable damage" to national security. However, as demonstrated in the Pentagon Papers case, this standard is extremely difficult to meet.

• Defamation: While journalists have heightened protection when reporting on public figures, deliberately false and damaging statements made with "actual malice" can still result in liability.

• Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions: The government may impose reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on press activities in specific contexts, such as courthouse access or military operations, provided these restrictions serve significant governmental interests and leave open alternative channels of communication.

• Commercial Speech: Reporting that constitutes commercial speech receives less protection and can be regulated to prevent fraud or deception.

4. Evaluation of Strategic Litigation Against Media Organizations and Associated Press Access Restrictions

Timing and volume of these lawsuits can be concerning, particularly when they occur during electoral periods. This suggests that the intention behind such litigation may not always be to seek legitimate legal redress but rather to intimidate media organizations. Moreover, the threat of defamation lawsuits can create a chilling effect. This means that journalists and media outlets may become deterred from pursuing investigative reporting, especially when it involves powerful entities that are likely to file such lawsuits. Even though the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) precedent sets a high bar by requiring public figures to prove "actual malice", the sheer cost and time involved in defending against these lawsuits can be prohibitive, particularly for smaller media organizations.  This fear of incurring substantial legal costs, even if the media outlet believes its reporting is accurate and protected under the "actual malice" standard, can lead to self-censorship. Journalists might choose to avoid controversial topics or tone down their reporting to minimize the risk of legal action. This chilling effect has significant consequences for media freedom and the public's right to information. It challenges international obligations related to freedom of expression provided by Article 19 of the ICCPR.

The imposition of access restrictions on the Associated Press, predicated on the organization's adherence to its own stylistic guidelines. The administration's attempt to dictate journalistic terminology and impose "appropriate consequences" for non-compliance can be construed as a form of compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination, both of which are antithetical to the principles of a free press. The attempt to dictate terminology represents what media law scholars call "soft censorship" - the use of indirect means to shape coverage without resorting to explicit prohibition. By establishing consequences for editorial choices, such policies effectively create a system of rewards and punishments designed to influence coverage before publication. This approach is particularly effective because it leaves no direct evidence of censorship, operating instead through a system of incentives that shape editorial decisions.

Historical parallels exist in the use of press credentials during the McCarthy era, when access was leveraged to influence coverage of congressional investigations. More recently, the pattern resembles tactics observed in semi-democratic systems where access is systematically used to reward favorable coverage and punish critical reporting. The key distinction lies in the specificity of the current approach - targeting not general editorial tone but specific linguistic choices, thereby inserting governmental preferences directly into journalistic decision-making processes.

Lesson from the United Kingdom's and phenomenon of “libel tourism”

Historically, the United Kingdom's defamation laws have presented a more plaintiff-friendly environment compared to the United States, facilitating the initiation of defamation lawsuits against media organizations. This disparity fostered the phenomenon of “libel tourism” wherein plaintiffs from foreign jurisdictions strategically pursued legal action in English courts to suppress critical publications. Such practices heightened anxieties regarding censorship and the suppression of legitimate journalistic inquiry.

In response to these concerns and the resulting chilling effect on investigative journalism, the United Kingdom enacted the Defamation Act 2013. This legislation introduced significant reforms, including the establishment of a "serious harm" threshold, which mandates plaintiffs to demonstrate actual or probable harm to their reputation. The Act also strengthened defenses for publications serving the public interest and peer-reviewed academic works. These reforms were designed to achieve a more equitable balance between safeguarding freedom of expression and protecting individual reputations, thereby mitigating the chilling effect on investigative reporting. The strengthened public interest defense provided greater protection for journalistic work on matters of civic importance. Perhaps most significantly, new jurisdictional rules prevented cases with minimal connection to the UK from proceeding in British courts.

The empirical results of these reforms have been substantial. Studies by the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies documented a 40% reduction in defamation cases in the three years following implementation, with particularly sharp declines in cases brought by corporate plaintiffs and public figures. More importantly, interviews with editors revealed significant reductions in legal reviews and story abandonment due to defamation concerns, suggesting a measurable improvement in the climate for investigative reporting.

Conclusion

The recent actions of the Trump administration present significant challenges to press freedom in the United States. While both international and domestic legal frameworks provide strong protections for journalistic activities, their practical enforcement faces substantial hurdles. The outcome of pending legal challenges to the administration's policies will likely shape the landscape of press freedom for years to come. The tension between national security concerns and press freedom remains unresolved, with courts continuing to grapple with finding the appropriate balance in an increasingly complex media environment.

Strengthening Anti-SLAPP Protections

Federal anti-SLAPP legislation represents an essential first step in mitigating the chilling effects of strategic litigation. By March 2025, 36 states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-SLAPP laws, the patchwork nature of these laws however creates jurisdictional vulnerabilities that sophisticated litigants can exploit. Federal legislation should establish minimum standards for early dismissal of meritless cases, stay of discovery during initial proceedings (a major source of cost exposure), and mandatory fee-shifting when cases are dismissed under the statute.

The California anti-SLAPP statute offers a particularly effective model, with its two-step analysis requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a probability of prevailing before proceeding to discovery. Empirical analysis of California's experience suggests that such provisions significantly reduce both the filing of strategic lawsuits and their effectiveness in suppressing speech when filed. Importantly, well-crafted anti-SLAPP provisions do not prevent legitimate defamation claims from proceeding, but rather establish procedural safeguards that filter out cases brought primarily to suppress speech.

Reforming Defamation Law Substantively

Beyond procedural reforms, substantive defamation law requires recalibration to better balance reputational interests with press freedom. Courts should develop clearer guidelines for applying this standard to different categories of plaintiffs, with particular attention to cases involving elected officials who have voluntarily entered the public arena.

Additionally, courts should adopt a more rigorous proportionality analysis when assessing damages in defamation cases. The prospect of outsized damages, even if ultimately unlikely to be awarded or upheld on appeal, creates substantial leverage for plaintiffs seeking to extract settlements or retractions. Establishing clearer parameters for damages would reduce this leverage and provide greater predictability for news organizations assessing litigation risk.