The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression Act, known as the PRESS Act, was introduced to establish federal protections for journalists. The act aimed to guarantee source confidentiality and prevent the government from secretly seizing journalists’ data through third parties. Despite bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, the bill failed to pass in the Senate. In the absence of federal protections, journalists continue to face a hostile environment, including recent lawsuits and threats from President Trump.

Supporters of the PRESS Act argue that it would create uniform protections across the country, eliminating the inconsistencies of state-level shield laws and safeguarding journalists from federal surveillance. They also note that expanded protections have not historically led to national security breaches. Moreover, administrations from both major political parties have used existing laws to investigate journalists, underscoring the need for nonpartisan protections.

However, opponents of the PRESS Act raise concerns about its potential impact on law enforcement and national security. Critics argue that the bill would shield leakers and grant journalists privileges not available to other citizens, including the handling of classified information. They also worry that the Act’s expansive definition of “journalist” could protect individuals who spread misinformation.

What do you think about the PRESS Act? How should lawmakers balance the need for press freedom with concerns about national security and law enforcement?