Takeaways from AFPC-USA's 2025 World Press Freedom Day Panel
On a day when the Trump administration tried to cut off funding for PBS and NPR, the world marks World Press Freedom Day 2025 under the shadow of growing censorship, fierce attacks on the media, and intensifying threats to press freedom around the globe.
AFPC-USA Vice President Bob Rowley hosted a timely panel discussion featuring Katherine Jacobsen of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Clayton Weimers of Reporters Without Borders (RSF), and Seth Stern of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF). The conversation tackled a range of pressing issues facing journalists today, from physical safety at protests and digital harassment to mounting visa concerns for foreign reporters entering the U.S. and the legal threats posed by attempts to weaken New York Times v. Sullivan. Drawing on their deep expertise, the panelists shared practical strategies, legal insights, and urgent calls to action, offering a clear-eyed assessment of the growing challenges to press freedom both at home and abroad.
Below, foreign correspondents will find detailed takeaways on the conversation.
ON CPJ’S RESPONSE TO PRESS FREEDOM CONCERNS
Jacobsen discussed CPJ’s first-ever travel advisory for journalists entering or exiting the United States, signaling growing concern about press freedom within U.S. borders.
Jacobsen began by noting how CPJ’s U.S. program has evolved significantly over the past seven years. She recalled that when she initially reached out to newsrooms offering safety training, editors would often respond, “Oh, we don’t have those issues here,” expressing gratitude for CPJ’s international work but viewing such concerns as irrelevant domestically. “That could not be more different from the current situation we are in,” she emphasized.
Since the November election, CPJ has trained over 500 journalists in safety modules to address both physical and digital threats, reflecting what she described as a “massive uptick in need.” She highlighted concerns that journalists may face greater risks under a second Trump administration — not only from harassment but also from U.S. border practices.
This led to the decision to issue a travel advisory, warning journalists about the limited civil protections at U.S. borders, particularly around federal agents' ability to access digital devices. “It’s really important that journalists have an understanding of when they’re entering or exiting the country,” Jacobsen said, urging them to plan ahead to protect sensitive data and sources. She noted that reporters do not have to unlock their devices with a passcode, but they should still prepare in case they’re compelled to.
Rowley found the advisory “very sobering,” recalling precautions he had taken while entering Iraq — precautions he “never imagined” would be necessary in the United States. He pointed to CPJ’s recommendation that journalists travel with a different phone, not their personal or work devices, to safeguard their data. Jacobsen confirmed the risk, referencing a 2018 CPJ report on journalists being stopped by border agents. Travel-related encounters declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, but she warned, “it’s very, very possible that it could happen again.”
When asked whether this shift had changed CPJ’s overall focus, Jacobsen replied that not only has the nature of the work evolved, but so has the pace, describing it as feeling like “drinking from a fire hose.” She added that Trump’s plans for the press were no secret, but the “rate at which things are happening” has been particularly alarming.
ON THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS INDEX
Weimers spoke about the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, which RSF released on May 2. He confirmed that this year’s data is “as negative as it’s ever been,” with a growing number of countries slipping into RSF’s worst category — marked in red — indicating environments with “functionally no press freedom.”
Weimers explained that 56% of the world’s population now lives under such conditions and that the average global press freedom score has hit a historic low. He emphasized that “the United States is no exception,” having dropped two more spots on the list, reaching an all-time low of 57th out of 180 countries and territories. For context, Weimers recalled that when RSF began the index in 2002, the U.S. ranked 17th, right ahead of Hong Kong at 18th — a region that has since fallen dramatically under Chinese control to 135th. This drop, he noted, reflects a decade of democratic backsliding and growing threats to the press worldwide.
When asked how these trends have changed RSF’s mission and operations, Weimers said he agreed with Jacobsen that the pace of the work has accelerated. “We’re busier than we’ve ever been,” he said, and “the nature of our work is evolving.”
He provided a powerful example: RSF is currently suing the U.S. government to save Voice of America (VOA) — a publicly funded global media outlet that reaches over 400 million weekly in countries with little press freedom. According to Weimers, the Trump administration has moved to dismantle VOA’s parent agency, the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which also oversees Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, and other outlets. This move, he said, has “put thousands of journalists out of work” and “taken vital journalistic programming off the air” in key regions of the world.
RSF successfully secured a preliminary injunction in court that “rolls back the damage that’s already been done.” However, Weimers expressed skepticism about whether the government would comply with the ruling, stating: “We don’t necessarily anticipate that they will.” Still, he was resolute: “It’s a fight that we intend to win. It’s a fight that we are currently winning.”
He concluded by saying that the situation — once unthinkable in the United States — is a reminder of how rapidly the landscape for press freedom has deteriorated, both at home and abroad.
ON FPF’S RESPONSE
Stern discussed how FPF is confronting growing threats to press freedom in the United States — threats that are increasingly systemic, politicized, and unprecedented.
Stern first introduced the work of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, describing it as a nonprofit that “promotes and defends public interest journalism.” The organization engages in both public advocacy (like op-eds and public campaigns) and behind-the-scenes policy work, while also operating the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which documents incidents such as “assaults on journalists, arrests, subpoenas,” and other violations. Additionally, the Foundation trains journalists on digital security and develops tools like SecureDrop and Dangerzone to protect whistleblowers and confidential sources.
Stern emphasized the urgency of their work in light of a recent and highly symbolic rollback: the Trump administration’s decision to rescind its policy limiting the subpoenaing of journalists to reveal their sources. He noted that this change was “expected” because it was included in Project 2025, a document outlining a potential second Trump administration’s agenda. While the original policy was nonbinding, its elimination signals a green light for renewed efforts to “go after journalists’ sources.” Stern warned that this development will likely open the door for “aggressive measures” against the press that could compromise journalistic confidentiality and source protection.
The conversation then turned to a new and particularly troubling threat: an apparent plan by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, under the Trump-aligned agenda, to use FCC licensing as a weapon against major media outlets. Stern described this as a break from historical precedent, saying that unlike many recent developments which are accelerations of existing trends, this is “something entirely new.”
He explained that while FCC rules have long required broadcast licensees to serve the “public interest,” no previous administration has ever interpreted that phrase to mean that the government can decide what content is or isn’t in the public’s interest. That, Stern said, would give the president authority to “retaliate against journalists he doesn’t like by saying, ‘that’s not in the public interest, so you can’t say it.’” He called this approach “so un-American” and noted that past leaders simply “never imagined they needed to codify protections against it.”
Stern didn’t mince words about Carr, calling him a “political stooge” who wears “a golden bust of Donald Trump on his lapel” and uses his office to “pursue vengeance against Trump’s enemies.” He said Carr is targeting outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC, and radio stations that covered ICE raids, accusing him of “finding frivolous legal bases to harass and intimidate them.”
Rowley echoed Stern’s alarm, pointing out the irony of Carr’s actions being carried out “in the name of protecting free speech” while in fact “squelching it.” He summarized Carr’s rationale as rooted in the belief that the major networks are “liberal and intolerant toward opposing viewpoints,” but argued that Carr’s threats represent the opposite of free expression.
In total, Stern's remarks painted a stark picture of press freedom under direct political attack. He warned that without structural protections, the First Amendment itself is being tested, and norms that were once assumed unbreakable are now being shattered.
ON HOW FREE SPEECH RHETORIC IS BEING CO-OPTED
Rowley opened with a critique of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, noting the contradiction between Carr’s stated mission of “protecting free speech” and the actual chilling effect his actions have on the press. He pointed out how Carr, and others in the Trump-aligned media strategy, are using conservative claims of liberal media bias as a rationale to undermine journalistic independence — a tactic that threatens to “squelch free speech.”
Weimers affirmed Rowley’s point and took it further. He highlighted what he called “double speak” — the now-common phenomenon where self-described First Amendment defenders use the language of free expression to erode it. Weimers argued that government overreach into editorial decisions, whether through regulatory threats or rhetorical attacks, is “completely antithetical to the First Amendment.” He clarified that while editorial decisions and content moderation are not censorship, government attempts to override them with its own viewpoint are. This, he said, represents a deep violation of press freedom and editorial independence.
Rowley likened the approach to “Orwellian” logic, where language is twisted to mask its opposite purpose, and then turned to Jacobsen for a broader assessment based on a new CPJ report.
Jacobsen summarized CPJ’s special report, released at the 100-day mark of Trump’s second administration, which documents how government tactics toward the media have evolved — and worsened. The report breaks down attacks on the press into four key areas:
Access restrictions (e.g., the Associated Press losing its traditional place in the White House press pool),
Regulatory abuse,
Legal pressure, and
Targeted harassment of journalists and media organizations.
She emphasized that what was once scattered and reactive in Trump’s first term has become more strategic and systematic. Where earlier efforts often targeted smaller or local outlets, this time around major national institutions like AP, CBS, and ABC are under direct pressure.
Jacobsen warned that targeting high-profile outlets like the AP has a ripple effect: it demonstrates that no outlet is immune, no matter how large or globally respected, and threatens the viability of smaller newsrooms that depend on AP content for reliable coverage. She described it as an effort not only to control the present narrative but also to rewrite the historical one — a deeply troubling trend for democracy.
In her words, this administration’s media strategy seeks to “distort the meaning and essence of what reporters are supposed to be doing,” ultimately reshaping journalism to serve power, not hold it accountable.
ON ESCALATING ATTACKS AGAINST INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM AND PUBLIC MEDIA
Rowley kicked things off with an explanation of what prompted Trump’s attack on the Associated Press (AP): the AP’s refusal to use the administration’s preferred term, “Gulf of America,” in place of the established name, “Gulf of Mexico.” Rowley noted how absurd this is in practice — a linguistic dispute used as political justification for retaliatory action — and pointed out that Trump’s true aim is to control narrative framing and punish outlets that don’t conform.
He then raised concerns about the “chilling effect” such moves have on journalism across the country, including manipulation of the White House press pool system and the insertion of advocacy operatives disguised as journalists. He asked the panel for concrete examples of how these actions are affecting newsrooms’ ability to report freely.
Jacobsen emphasized how deeply influential the AP’s style guidelines are, even if the public might not realize it. These seemingly small editorial decisions set industry-wide norms, and pressure campaigns like this signal to all outlets that defying the administration’s preferred narratives carries serious risk.
She pointed out a key trend in Trump 2.0: while the number of tracked anti-media incidents is lower than during the first administration, the atmosphere of fear and compliance is stronger. The result is a “permeating” effect that influences even those not directly targeted. It’s quieter, more strategic — but no less damaging to a free press.
Rowley then shifted to another front in this broader campaign: attacks on Voice of America (VOA) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
Weimers explained that CPB, while technically independent, is funded by Congress and provides vital support to local public radio and TV stations through community grants. These stations are often the last reliable source of local journalism, especially in rural and underserved areas. Without CPB funding, dozens — possibly hundreds — of outlets may shut down, creating even more news deserts in the U.S.
He also highlighted the public safety role of local media during emergencies — wildfires, hurricanes, floods — where they offer trusted, up-to-date information to keep communities safe, particularly when misinformation is rampant online.
Crucially, Weimers called out the administration’s justification — “cost cutting” — as a smokescreen. Public media costs about $1.60 per American per year, he noted, a negligible sum compared to the value delivered. The real aim, he argued, is ideological: to weaken journalism seen as politically threatening.
Rowley reinforced this point with data: 3,200 local newspapers have closed in the last 20 years, and many counties, especially in rural red-state areas, are already down to one or zero local news sources. Cuts to public broadcasting would further isolate these communities, depriving them not just of national and global context, but of vital local news — including economic data, policy changes, and crop prices.
Weimers concluded by debunking a common conservative narrative that paints NPR and PBS as elite, liberal institutions. The truth, he said, is the opposite: the brunt of these cuts will fall on rural, working-class Americans, not urban liberals. Without community outlets, people will be forced to rely on distant national sources that lack local insight — a shift that undermines trust and civic cohesion.
ON HOW THESE ATTACKS EXPAND INTO A BROADER ONE AGAINST LEGAL AND CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Rowley opened by shifting the conversation slightly beyond traditional media outlets, pointing out that the press relies heavily on nonprofits and pro bono law firms to defend itself and function. All the panelists, as he noted, represent nonprofits — and these institutions are now increasingly in the administration’s crosshairs.
Stern explained that this isn’t just about silencing critical headlines — it's about undermining the entire ecosystem that enables scrutiny and dissent. He cited how the administration had already issued executive orders punishing specific law firms that engaged in work Trump didn’t like, including restricting their access to federal buildings. In some cases, firms capitulated — donating to causes Trump favored or offering free legal work in exchange for being left alone — a dynamic Stern called both short-sighted and self-defeating.
Why does this matter? Stern emphasized that journalists and nonprofits depend heavily on these legal services to defend themselves from lawsuits (especially SLAPP suits, which are designed to intimidate and silence), navigate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and intervene in court to gain access to hearings and records. If law firms are chilled or punished for defending these cases, the entire infrastructure of media defense collapses.
He noted that the Trump administration appears poised to expand its reach further — especially via executive orders that would redefine what qualifies as “public interest.” This could allow them to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that conduct work seen as adversarial to the administration. The existing legal framework has safeguards (for example, advocacy work can't legally be equated with terrorism), but Trump is reportedly seeking to erode or bypass those protections.
Stern warned that this kind of power could be turned against nonprofit newsrooms, press freedom foundations, and even photojournalists — such as those accused of terrorism ties merely for selling images from conflict zones. Even without evidence, the allegation alone has been used to justify calls for investigation. This type of guilt-by-association tactic could be dramatically expanded if Trump’s administration succeeds in redefining what “public interest” means.
Rowley highlighted one of the most chilling implications of this strategy: the deliberate breakdown of the FOIA system, which is essential for holding the government accountable. FOIA is widely taught and used by journalists for routine beat reporting — checking schedules, emails, and decision-making. But with entire FOIA departments gutted or disbanded, government agencies can now simply ignore requests under the excuse of staff shortages.
Stern agreed and took it further, warning that recordkeeping itself is under threat. He pointed out the chaotic restructuring of government, such as Marco Rubio simultaneously serving as Secretary of State and head of the National Archives, raising serious questions about conflicts of interest and continuity of records. As agencies dissolve or are merged under political loyalists, the official archives may fail to capture or preserve critical documents — eroding both the historical record and the factual basis of journalism.
He closed by observing that we’re not just losing transparency in the present — we’re losing the ability to understand and document history. With FOIA systems dismantled, courts harder to access, and archives undermined, future generations may have no clear record of what happened during these years.
ON SAFETY TRAINING
Rowley turned the focus to safety training for journalists in the U.S., specifically highlighting recent efforts by CPJ during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. He noted that while physical threats during protests are a concern, the trainings seemed “deeper than that,” aimed at protecting reporters from a broader array of risks. Jacobsen responded by describing their comprehensive three-part approach to journalist safety: physical, digital, and mental.
On the physical front, CPJ has worked with partners like the Freedom of the Press Foundation to train journalists on situational awareness, what to carry to a protest, and how to recognize when it’s time to leave for their own safety. These sessions aren't limited to big-city reporters. CPJ is also helping “freelancers or those in more rural areas” who may lack institutional protections, tailoring sessions to individual needs.
Digital safety, Jacobsen explains, has become equally critical. She emphasizes the threat posed by data brokers in the U.S., which legally allow vast amounts of personal data—addresses, phone numbers, family names—to be made available online. “A service like DeleteMe,” she says, is often their first recommendation, as it helps journalists “scrub out that information” from the internet. While such services aren't always free, and often require employers or journalists to pay, they offer a crucial “first line of defense” against online harassment and doxxing. CPJ also trains reporters in source protection, weighing the legal value of leaving a digital trail—“to ward off a potential defamation case”—versus using encrypted platforms with disappearing messages to protect anonymous sources.
Finally, she highlights the often-overlooked mental health aspect of reporting under threat. Covering controversy in your own community can be isolating and stressful—“you’re going to the grocery store with the people who are not happy with you for your reporting.” CPJ supports journalists in building resilience, recognizing the toll this work takes emotionally, not just physically. “That’s kind of our three-pronged approach to safety,” she concludes, urging anyone interested in training to contact CPJ directly at emergencies@cpj.org.
ON THE RISKS FACING FOREIGN JOURNALISTS ENTERING THE U.S.
Rowley raises a sobering question to Weimers about the risks facing foreign journalists entering the U.S.—from immigration barriers to the chilling effects of self-censorship. Weimers doesn’t hesitate: “The answer to all your questions is yes.” He shares that on a recent trip to Europe, reporters, lawyers, and human rights activists all asked some variation of the same question: “Is it safe to come to the United States?”—a reversal from past conversations abroad, when the U.S. was not considered a high-risk destination for the press.
Back home, during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner week, the same themes arose among attendees. Weimers describes a growing anxiety about digital security during international travel—questions like, “Should I travel with a clean device?” balanced against the worry that such caution could make a journalist appear suspicious to border agents. The fear is no longer theoretical: “International reporters based in the United States are really starting to think hard about whether they want to pursue certain stories,” he says, especially if those stories could be interpreted as sympathetic to Hamas or critical of Israel and the U.S. government. The implication is stark—foreign journalists now consider handing off stories to American colleagues to avoid jeopardizing their visa status.
Weimers also points to concrete cases of journalists from Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free Asia whose visas were canceled after losing their employment, leaving them vulnerable to deportation. If forced to return to countries like China, Russia, Belarus, or Azerbaijan, “we can be pretty sure” those individuals would at least face interrogation, “if not arrested or worse.” These are not hypotheticals—they are already unfolding, and they carry significant weight for press freedom.
While Weimers insists he never wants to discourage a journalist from pursuing a story or traveling for their work, he stresses that they now must “take the risks into account” in ways they never had to before, especially when traveling to the United States. For those without institutional backing, he recommends turning to support from press freedom organizations, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “They have a legal hotline,” he notes, that can be critical for reporters “detained at the border” or facing sudden legal challenges.
ON A VITAL PAST SCOTUS CASE
In response to Rowley’s question about the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, Stern distills a complex legal precedent into clear terms. The 1964 Supreme Court ruling established that for a public official to win a defamation case, they must prove the journalist acted with “actual malice”—meaning the journalist either knowingly published something false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. As Stern explains, this standard “is hard to satisfy by design” because the legal system recognizes the importance of protecting vigorous debate and investigative journalism, even when it includes some errors or exaggeration. Without this high bar, reporters would be forced to “walk on eggshells,” leading to widespread self-censorship and a chilling effect on critical reporting.
Stern notes that the scope of Sullivan has expanded over the years to include not just public officials but also public figures—celebrities, wealthy individuals, or anyone whose life is of legitimate public interest. This broad protection, however, has become a target for some conservatives who feel it makes it too difficult to sue critics, especially in the media. “There have been attacks on Sullivan for some time,” Stern says, pointing out that at least two current Supreme Court justices—Thomas and Alito—appear willing to reconsider or even overturn the precedent. Still, he emphasizes that recent petitions aiming to challenge Sullivan have been denied, and “it does not appear at this time that a majority of the Supreme Court is in favor” of dismantling it.
Efforts to weaken Sullivan are also playing out at the state level, most notably in Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis has backed legislation for several years intended to roll back the standard. While such bills would be unconstitutional under federal law, Stern explains, the goal is often strategic: to create legal conflict that might eventually reach the Supreme Court. Yet even in Florida, pushback has emerged—notably from conservatives who realized that Sullivan “protects them just as much as it protects the people they call the liberal media.” Those bills, Stern notes, have not advanced.
He concludes with a pointed warning: “Eventually, folks are going to start realizing that whatever powers and whatever abuses they allow for themselves will one day be used against them.” The implication is clear—eroding press protections today could backfire tomorrow, regardless of which party is in power.
