Politics
Opinion: How press freedoms could fare under the second Trump administration
With Donald Trump set to return to the White House next year, there’s much speculation on how his second administration will affect press freedom. The short answer is that we don’t know, but prognosticators do have the benefit of an important dataset: his first term.
And, if that record is any indication, national security “leaks” to the press may be an area of tension between journalists and the new leadership at the Justice Department. If there is a chilling effect on sources coming forward with newsworthy information in the public interest, Americans will be less informed and the American government will be held less accountable.
Things have been quiet on that front for the last four years, but the first Trump administration inherited and expanded the Obama administration’s aggressive pursuit of sources who disclosed government secrets to the press.
And President-elect Trump has often decried national security leaks and called for aggressively investigating and prosecuting them.
It would be foolish for press advocates to discount the possibility of a repeat of his first term, and perhaps an escalation.
There are several federal laws that can be read to criminalize the public disclosure of national security secrets. The most prominent is the Espionage Act of 1917, a World War I-era law that was initially used against domestic opponents of the war but applies to the act of communicating, delivering or transmitting “information relating to the national defense,” a broad term, to anyone not entitled to receive it.
In other words, if someone were to anonymously slip a manila envelope under a reporter’s door with government secrets — even secrets that the public has a clear interest in knowing, such as the warrantless domestic wiretapping by the George W. Bush administration — the Justice Department has consistently claimed the authority to investigate and prosecute the source, as well as the journalist, under the Espionage Act. There is no “public interest” defense.
Historically, it hasn’t been used that way. For about 90 years, the Espionage Act was deployed against actual spies, not journalists’ sources. There are a few exceptions — most prominently the Pentagon Papers case, in which the government launched a failed prosecution against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo — but source cases are in the single digits. And, while there were investigations involving journalists, no reporter or news outlet was ultimately prosecuted under the Espionage Act in that period.
The reason is simple. When the reporting is in the public interest, taking the leaker or journalist to court would be a “political firestorm,” as a federal appeals court judge put it in one of those few exceptions, a 1980s case involving a leak of classified photographs.
But the Bush and Obama administrations marked a shift in practice.
Under President George W. Bush, the Justice Department brought the first Espionage Act case other than Russo against individuals outside government, who had not sworn to protect government secrets. The Bush administration also featured the Valerie Plame case, which started as a leak investigation, in which Judith Miller of the New York Times spent 85 days in jail for refusing to identify a confidential source from her reporting about the run-up to the Iraq war. And the Bush Justice Department issued a subpoena in 2008 to force the New York Times’ James Risen to identify his source in another leak case, which the Obama administration pursued until 2015.
Then the Obama administration started to bring Espionage Act prosecutions against journalists’ sources in earnest. Depending on how you count, his administration brought 10 such cases. That is more than all other presidents combined.
Trump’s first term followed that trend. The Justice Department brought eight cases against journalist sources, including two under bank secrecy laws, as well as the Julian Assange case. The Assange case is complicated, but he was charged in part under the novel and dangerous legal theory that publishing secrets is a crime.
These cases can involve secret government demands for reporters’ notes; phone, email and text records; and correspondence with sources. That kind of snooping can reveal the constellation of a journalist’s sources beyond just the investigation in question and can give the government visibility into other stories the newsroom is investigating, including stories about the government. As Miller said when facing jail time: “If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press.”
The Justice Department during Trump’s first term turbocharged Obama-era approaches. In addition to seizing years of records from reporter Ali Watkins’ phone and email providers, a Customs and Border Protection agent threatened to reveal private information unless she identified her sources. Watkins was a reporter at Politico at the time of the questioning and was at the New York Times when she learned of the records seizure.
Then, in the early days of the Biden administration, we learned that the Justice Department in the last days of the Trump administration had authorized demands for phone and email records for eight reporters at CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post in three separate leak investigations. It did so without notifying those outlets in advance — to give them a chance to negotiate or challenge the demands — and the CNN and New York Times demands came with a gag order preventing newsroom lawyers from even alerting the reporters that they had been targeted.
The history of leak investigations under Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump shows that the threat to the free flow of information is bipartisan and spans administrations. President Biden’s term has been a notable exception, but a reprise may be coming.
Gabe Rottman is the policy director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Politics
'Absolute necessity': Trump sparks concerns after floating desire to control Panama Canal, Greenland
President-elect Donald Trump suggested on Wednesday that the U.S. could take control of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal—an unexpected Christmas Day message that has sparked concerns among world leaders in recent days as they scramble to prepare for Trump’s second White House term.
In a Wednesday post on the platform Truth Social, Trump wished a “Merry Christmas to all,” including to the “wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal,” before moving on to take aim at Canada and Greenland as well, which he suggested again could be better off under U.S. governance.
Trump reiterated his claim that U.S. shippers are being forced to pay “ridiculous” and “exorbitant” prices to navigate the Panama Canal—an artificial, 51-mile waterway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. He has suggested, without evidence, that Chinese interests are gaining outsize influence over the waterway, something Panamanian leaders have steadfastly denied.
TRUMP FLOATS IDEA OF US RECLAIMING PANAMA CANAL: ‘FOOLISHLY GAVE IT AWAY’
In his Truth Social post Wednesday, Trump also mockingly referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” reiterating his recent suggestion that Canada should be turned into a U.S. state.
“If Canada was to become our 51st state, their taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other country anywhere in the world,” Trump said.
Finally, the president-elect turned his attention to Greenland; an autonomous, geographically important Arctic location rife with natural resources, including rare earth minerals.
The U.S., Trump said on Wednesday, “feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for reasons of national security and “global freedom.’
Bigger picture
Trump’s lengthy Truth Social post did little to assuage the concerns of some world leaders, who have carefully watched Trump’s actions and his statements in recent weeks for clues as to how he might govern in a second term.
The remarks also appear to be at odds with the “America First” policies long espoused by Trump, which seek to prioritize domestic policy rather than expansion or U.S. presence abroad.
Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., echoed Trump’s concerns in an interview Thursday, describing China’s influence in the Panama Canal, and the higher prices incurred by shippers, as a “shot across the bow.”
“Remember, we have China and Cuba,” Zinke said on “Mornings with Maria.“ “We have Maduro in Venezuela. We have had Russian ships there. And the Panama Canal is critical to our national security. And at present, it is being run by the Chinese Communist Party. So it’s a concern—absolutely.”
‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY?
To be sure, it is not the first time Trump has indicated interest in Greenland, a mineral-rich, geographically important territory.
In 2019, then-President Trump told reporters he was “interested” in purchasing Greenland, which he described at the time as “essentially” a “large real estate deal.” The 2019 effort never gained traction, however; and this week, Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede immediately poured cold water on the idea that their territory could be sold to the U.S.
“Greenland is ours,” Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede said this week, in response to Trump’s suggestion.
“We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” he said. “We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”
Meanwhile, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino also disputed the notion that U.S. vessels have been singled out or paid higher fees to traverse the Panama Canal—as well as the notion that the U.S., which phased out its ownership beginning in the 1970s, has any right to reassert control over the shipping waypoint.
In a video posted to social media earlier this week, Mulino reassured his country’s people that the “sovereignty and independence of our country is non-negotiable.”
The Panama Canal is one of the largest and most strategically important commodity shipping waterways in the world. It handles roughly 5% of all global maritime trade and roughly 40% of U.S. container ship traffic.
Recent higher prices are primarily the result of drought and more competition, which sent water levels plummeting last year to their lowest point on record. Though water levels have since rebounded, operators of the canal were forced to temporarily limit vessel traffic and increase costs for ships using the waypoint.
Other factors have also played a role in higher maritime shipping prices.
A series of attacks on vessels in the Red Sea late last year prompted many major commodities shippers, including BP and Equinor, to pause or reroute their shipments away from the Suez Canal. Some opted to reroute supplies via the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks of additional time to their trips.
The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, incorrectly claimed on social media last week that the Panama Canal cost U.S. taxpayers $15.7 billion. In fact, the higher costs are shouldered by the ships that pass through the waterway, in the form of tolls. The U.S. government does not subsidize the canal.
‘AMERICA FIRST’ VS. ‘AMERICA LAST’: WHAT DOES TRUMP’S RETURN MEAN FOR US FOREIGN POLICY?
Panamanian authorities have stressed that the prices are not the result of “unfair” treatment, or capitulation to China or any other nation-state influence.
“The canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power,” Mulino said in his remarks. “As a Panamanian, I reject any manifestation that misrepresents this reality.”
Still, Trump does not appear to be backing down on expansion claims.
“The Panama Canal is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America’s Economy and National Security,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Sunday. “A secure Panama Canal is crucial for U.S. Commerce, and rapid deployment of the Navy, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and drastically cuts shipping times to U.S. ports.”
“We’re not going to stand for it,” he said. “So, to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.”
Politics
Greenland says no thanks to Trump purchase idea — again
WASHINGTON — If President-elect Donald Trump’s assertion that the United States should have control of Greenland sounds familiar, that’s because he’s said it before — during his first term as president.
Back in 2019, Trump’s call caused a brief diplomatic tiff with Denmark, under whose sovereignty the vast island falls. Then as now, the suggestion was met with derision in some quarters, but it spotlighted serious questions about the icy territory’s strategic significance in an era of accelerating climate change.
Trump’s commentary also pointed up a quandary faced by U.S. allies, which will become more pressing within a few weeks, when the Oval Office changes hands: whether smaller and less powerful states ought to greet startling declarations from Washington with silence, conciliation, throat-clearing obfuscation or clearly stated opposition — especially since the issue in question might simply go away anyway.
Sometimes, Trump ultimately defuses such flaps by saying he was only joking. At other times, he hints that those who defy him might face consequences later. Denmark is a member of the European Union, which is already preparing for a potentially tense relationship with the incoming president.
Here is some background about Greenland, why the president-elect is raising the topic again, and what might come next.
What is this place?
Greenland is an Alaska-sized, self-ruling Danish territory off North America, between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. It is the world’s biggest island that isn’t a continent, about two-thirds of it lying within the Arctic Circle. It is largely ice-covered and sparsely populated: Fewer than 60,000 people live there. With the exception of foreign nationals, those living there are full citizens of Denmark.
How did this idea even come up?
The president-elect’s unexpected comment came Sunday as he was announcing his choice for U.S. envoy to Copenhagen, PayPal co-founder Ken Howery. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump declared that “America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” citing “purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World.”
How did Greenland’s government respond?
Somewhat crisply. On Monday, its elected leader, Prime Minister Mute Egede, said in a statement that Greenland “is not for sale and will never be for sale.” But the prime minister also said Greenland “must continue to be open to cooperation and trade with the whole world, especially our neighbors.”
How did Trump’s 2019 idea play out?
When Trump made his initial real-estate overture, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen dismissed Trump’s offer as “absurd.” The then-president termed that response “nasty” and called off a planned state visit to Denmark.
Still, the idea of such a purchase was not unprecedented. The United States had made several similar forays, dating to the 1860s, all of them short-lived.
This time around, any headaches for Denmark could be longer-lasting. Trump was already 19 months into his first term when he floated the purchase notion. With his swearing-in still four weeks away, there will be a full four years for the issue to simmer.
Is territorial expansion a theme for Trump’s second presidency?
In this postelection, pre-inauguration phase, Trump has already made waves by musing about the status of Canada, suggesting, in an apparent jab at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that the United States’ sovereign northern neighbor could become a 51st state. Also over the weekend, he hinted that Washington could move to seize control of the Panama Canal, ceded back to Panama a quarter of a century ago, over what Trump termed excessive fees to transit the vital waterway.
There has been no indication the president-elect intends to follow up on any of these territorial propositions, or what would be the mechanism for doing so.
Why is Greenland strategically significant?
The island is home to a large U.S. military base. The melting of Greenland’s ice sheet, documented for years and known to be speeding up, could lead to the opening of previously blocked international shipping passages, spurring great-power competition in the Arctic. In addition, Greenland possesses immense mineral riches — gold, silver, copper and uranium — whose potential extraction would be complicated by harsh weather and lack of road access, as well as environmental concerns.
Politics
Trump has Christmas message to 'Radical Left Lunatics,' tells inmates Biden granted clemency to 'GO TO HELL!'
President-elect Trump dished out a fiery Christmas message on Wednesday in which he wished a “Merry Christmas” to “Radical Left Lunatics,” told the 37 prisoners whose death row sentences were recently commuted by President Biden to “GO TO HELL!,” and more.
“Merry Christmas to the Radical Left Lunatics, who are constantly trying to obstruct our Court System and our Elections, and are always going after the Great Citizens and Patriots of the United States but, in particular, their Political Opponent, ME. They know that their only chance of survival is getting pardons from a man who has absolutely no idea what he is doing,” Trump declared on Truth Social.
“Also, to the 37 most violent criminals, who killed, raped, and plundered like virtually no one before them, but were just given, incredibly, a pardon by Sleepy Joe Biden. I refuse to wish a Merry Christmas to those lucky “souls” but, instead, will say, GO TO HELL! We had the Greatest Election in the History of our Country, a bright light is now shining over the U.S.A. and, in 26 days, we will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. MERRY CHRISTMAS!” he added.
TRUMP AND BIDEN OFFER CHRISTMAS GREETINGS AS US APPROACHES TRANSFER OF POWER
Biden recently announced that he commuted the sentences of 37 prisoners on federal death row to life sentences without the potential for parole.
“Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss,” the president said in a statement, but noted that he is “more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level.”
TRUMP PLEDGES TO BRING BACK FEDERAL EXECUTIONS AFTER BIDEN COMMUTES DEATH SENTENCES FOR 37 INMATES
In a separate post, Trump declared, “Merry Christmas to all, including to the wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal (where we lost 38,000 people in its building 110 years ago), always making certain that the United States puts in Billions of Dollars in ‘repair’ money, but will have absolutely nothing to say about ‘anything.’
He also discussed Canada, referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the “Governor” of America’s northern neighbor, while suggesting that Canadian businesses would boom if the nation became a U.S. state.
TRUMP FLOATS NHL LEGEND WAYNE GRETZKY AS CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER AMID TRUDEAU TURMOIL
“Also, to Governor Justin Trudeau of Canada, whose Citizens’ Taxes are far too high, but if Canada was to become our 51st State, their Taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other Country anywhere in the World. Likewise, to the people of Greenland, which is needed by the United States for National Security purposes and, who want the U.S. to be there, and we will!” Trump declared.
-
Technology6 days ago
Google’s counteroffer to the government trying to break it up is unbundling Android apps
-
News7 days ago
Novo Nordisk shares tumble as weight-loss drug trial data disappoints
-
Politics7 days ago
Illegal immigrant sexually abused child in the U.S. after being removed from the country five times
-
Entertainment1 week ago
'It's a little holiday gift': Inside the Weeknd's free Santa Monica show for his biggest fans
-
Lifestyle7 days ago
Think you can't dance? Get up and try these tips in our comic. We dare you!
-
Technology2 days ago
There’s a reason Metaphor: ReFantanzio’s battle music sounds as cool as it does
-
Technology1 week ago
Fox News AI Newsletter: OpenAI responds to Elon Musk's lawsuit
-
News3 days ago
France’s new premier selects Eric Lombard as finance minister