The recent raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the home of a journalist represents a shocking escalation in the intimidation of the American press. However, experts warn this act is not a sudden rupture but the product of a decades-long erosion of press protections at both federal and local levels across the United States.
The Espionage Act: A Loaded Gun Against Whistleblowers and Journalists
Following the publication of the Pentagon Papers, the Nixon administration turned to the World War I-era Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. While Nixon's illicit campaign ultimately failed, it left the Act as a potent weapon. This tool lay largely dormant until the Obama administration, which, despite promises of transparency, normalised its use against sources like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and Thomas Drake.
Targeting sources quickly leads to targeting journalists themselves. The Obama administration notoriously threatened national security reporter James Risen with jail to force him to reveal a source. While Risen was not imprisoned, his alleged source, Jeffrey Sterling, was convicted—partly based on metadata showing contact with the journalist. This established a dangerous precedent: surveilling journalists to build cases against their contacts.
From Sources to Publishers: The Pursuit of WikiLeaks
The government's pursuit of WikiLeaks marked a severe escalation. While source Chelsea Manning faced torturous confinement, the target expanded to include publisher Julian Assange. Under President Trump, Assange faced an unprecedented Espionage Act indictment, with charges alleging that the standard journalist-source relationship was itself a crime. The Biden administration later secured a plea deal, establishing that publishing newsworthy information on war crimes could be deemed a conspiracy under the Act.
This legal landscape has primed the public and lawmakers to accept the criminalisation of routine journalism. Bipartisan congressional subpoenas of journalists and rhetoric labelling reporting as "leaking" or "doxxing" have become disturbingly common.
A Toothless Law and the Normalisation of Newsroom Raids
In response to a 1970s raid on the Stanford Daily student newspaper, Congress passed the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) of 1980. It was designed to stop law enforcement from commandeering newsrooms. However, the law is weak—victims can sue, but officials can claim a "good faith" defence, and evidence seized illegally is not automatically barred.
Consequently, raids have continued with alarming frequency. In 2023, the Marion County Record in Kansas was raided on a pretextual claim; the paper's co-owner died from shock the following day. That same year, Florida journalist Tim Burke's home and newsroom were ransacked by the FBI over alleged computer crimes related to obtaining Fox News outtakes.
Other examples include the 2019 raids on San Francisco journalist Bryan Carmody. As lawyer Mark Rasch notes, such raids invariably seize unrelated materials, creating a profound chilling effect on press freedom. The normalization of these invasions, based on flimsy pretexts, has now reached the highest federal levels.
Combined with the enduring threat of the Espionage Act, which treats whistleblowers and journalists as enemy spies, these tactics form a deadly weapon against a free press. This is especially perilous under political leaders who have openly mused about jailing and harming journalists. The raid on journalist Hannah Natanson is not an aberration but a stark warning sign in a long, deliberate backslide.
