A “dual threat” is confronting journalism in the United States today, according to Harvard alumni who spoke during a recent panel on press freedom.
Moderated by Richard Tofel ’79, former founding general manager of ProPublica and former assistant publisher of The Wall Street Journal, and hosted by ClassACT HR73, an alumni initiative dedicated to social change, the discussion examined how routine reporting practices—contacting reluctant sources, covering protests, requesting comment from public officials, and documenting events—are increasingly being treated as suspicious, disruptive, or even criminal. Even routine journalism, the three panelists warned, can now expose reporters to both physical and legal dangers.
The panel featured David McCraw, The New York Times’ lead newsroom lawyer; Bruce Brown, the president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit that provides legal support to journalists and news organizations; and Francia García Hernández, a reporter for the local news nonprofit Block Club Chicago who covers immigration enforcement and ICE operations in the city.
The first threat for reporters, panelists argued, is physical. Journalists are often exposed to harassment, detention risk, and unsafe working conditions. The second threat is legal: lawsuits, subpoenas, device seizures, and the expanding use of broad criminal statutes against routine newsgathering.
Brown warned of prosecutors’ growing willingness to invoke against journalists laws that historically have not been associated with reporting activity, including anti-stalking statutes, conspiracy provisions, and the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act). Brown described these strategies as “a very poor fit to newsgathering” but said they are increasingly being tested against reporters covering politically charged events.
He also pointed to expanding legal pressures on the press more broadly. The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, Brown noted, has grown substantially in recent years as the need for legal help in the face of these pressures grows. “When I started 14 years ago, there were two or three of us,” he said. “Now [there are] almost 30 lawyers.” The organization currently handles more than 100 active cases involving libel defense, subpoenas, public-records disputes, and litigation over access to government records, court documents and other materials across the country.
The panel identified confidential source protection as another major legal battleground, particularly as governments seek toaccess reporters’ phones and electronic devices during leak investigations (formal inquiries aimed at identifying sources who illegally or confidentially release sensitive, classified, or non-public information to news media). Such efforts, the panelists argued, threaten both individual reporters and the willingness of sources to share important information.
McCraw, the New York Times lawyer, described the increasingly adversarial legal relationship between major news organizations and President Trump. “The president’s lawyers are frequent pen pals of mine,” McCraw remarked, recounting years of lawsuits and legal threats directed at the Times tied to reporting on Trump family finances and confidential records. Even unsuccessful lawsuits, the panel suggested, can impose substantial financial and operational burdens on news organizations.
Longstanding constitutional protections for the press remain central—including New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established the “actual malice” standard for defamation claims involving public officials. Widely regarded as one of the most important First Amendment rulings in U.S. history, the decision requires public officials to prove thatalleged lies, misrepresentations, or false statements about them or their policies were made knowingly or with “reckless disregard for the truth.” This strengthens legal protections for reporting on matters of public concern. Although Sullivan has faced sustained criticism from some jurists and litigants, especially in recent years, it continues to be cited in modern Supreme Court decisions, the panel noted.
At the same time, a small but persistent group of justices has signaled interest in revisiting the ruling—most notably Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch. In a written dissent from a Supreme Court ruling in a 2021 libel case, Justice Gorsuch described Sullivan as having “evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods.” Still, those views have not gained traction with the majority of the Court. Indeed, more recent Supreme Court opinions have continued to invoke Sullivan as a foundational First Amendment principle.
Against that backdrop, panelists expressed little concern that the Court is poised to overturn the ruling. Brown said he did not believe “there’s a lot of appetite at the Supreme Court to change it,” noting that the “actual malice” standard is already embedded in some state laws, including in New York. The panelists emphasized that Sullivan also continues to shape the legal framework protecting not only journalists, but also politicians—which gives the ruling more power.
Still, while Sullivan itself may not face immediate danger before the Supreme Court, journalists are nevertheless operating in an increasingly hostile and litigious environment. Even without a direct reversal of Sullivan or related legal protections, aggressive defamation suits, rising litigation costs, online harassment, and political hostility toward the media have created a chilling effect on investigative reporting. Together, these pressures have normalized costly legal battles and public attacks that strain news organizations and erode trust in the press.
