“There are already a dozen cases piling up against me,” she said. “I’m a journalist. One murder case is enough to frame me.”

Rupa, a former chief correspondent at privately owned broadcaster Ekattor TV, now faces nine murder cases. Her husband, Shakil Ahmed, the channel’s former head of news, is named in eight.  

A year ago, Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus took charge of Bangladesh’s interim government after Sheikh Hasina resigned and fled the country following weeks of student-led protests, during which two journalists were killed.

Yunus promised media reform and repealed the Cyber Security Act, a law used to target journalists under Hasina. But in a November 2024 interview with newspaper The Daily Star, Yunus said that murder accusations against journalists were being made hastily. He said the government had since halted such actions and that a committee had been formed to review the cases.

Still, nearly a year later, Rupa, Ahmed, Shyamal Dutta and Mozammel Haque Babu, arrested on accusations of instigating murders in separate cases, remain behind bars. The repeated use of such charges against journalists who are widely seen as sympathetic to the former regime appear to be politically motivated censorship.

In addition to such legal charges, CPJ has documented physical attacks against journalists, threats from political activists, and exile. At least 25 journalists are under investigation for genocide by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal – a charge that has been used to target figures linked to the former Hasina government. 

“Keeping four journalists behind bars without credible evidence a year on undermines the interim government’s stated commitment to protect press freedom,” said CPJ Regional Director Beh Lih Yi. “Real reform means breaking from the past, not replicating its abuses. All political parties must respect journalists’ right to report as the country is set for polls in coming months.”

A CPJ review of legal documents and reports found that journalists are often added to First Information Reports (FIRs) – documents that open an investigation – long after they are filed. In May, UN experts raised concern that over 140 journalists had been charged with murder following last year’s protests.

Shyamal Dutta’s daughter, Shashi, told CPJ the family has lost track of how many cases he now faces. They are aware of at least six murder cases in which he is named, while Babu’s family is aware of 10. Rupa and Ahmed’s family told CPJ that they haven’t received FIRs for five cases in which one or the other journalist has been named, which means that neither can apply for bail.

Shafiqul Alam, Yunus’s press secretary, and police spokesperson Enamul Haque Sagor did not respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment. 

Violence and threats

In 2025, reporters across Bangladesh have faced violence and harassment while covering political events, with CPJ documenting at least 10 such incidents, most of which were carried out by members or affiliates of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its student wing, Chhatra Dal. In several instances, journalists sustained serious injuries or were prevented from reporting after footage was deleted or phones seized, including Bahar Raihan, Abdullah Al Mahmud, and Rocky Hossain.

Responding to the allegations, Mahdi Amin, adviser to Acting BNP Chair Tarique Rahman, told CPJ that while isolated misconduct may occur in a party of BNP’s size, the party does not protect wrongdoers. 

Others have faced threats from supporters of different political parties and the student groups that led the protests against Hasina. Reporters covering opposition groups like Jamaat-e-Islami or its student wing, Islami Chhatra Shibir, have come under particular pressure. On June 9, Hasanat Kamal, editor of EyeNews.news, told CPJ he’d fled to the United Kingdom after being falsely accused by Islami Chhatra Shibir of participating in a violent student protest. Anwar Hossain, a journalist for the local daily Dabanol, told CPJ he’d been threatened by Jamaat supporters after publishing negative reports about a local party leader. 

CPJ reached out via messaging app to Abdus Sattar Sumon, a spokesperson for Jamaat-e-Islami, but received no response.

Since Hasina’s ouster, student protesters from the Anti-Discrimination Students Movement (ADSM) have increasinglytargeted journalists they accuse of supporting the former regime, which in one case led to the firing of five journalists. Student-led mobs have also besieged outlets like Prothom Alo and The Daily Star. 

CPJ reached out via messaging app to ADSM leader Rifat Rashid but received no response.

On July 14, exiled investigative journalist Zulkarnain Saer Khan, who fled Bangladesh after exposing alleged high-level corruption under Hasina and receiving threats from Awami League officials, posted on X about the repression of the media: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Kunal Majumder/CPJ India Representative.

“It is a grave injustice that Sandra Muhoza remains behind bars two months after an appeal court effectively invalidated her earlier trial and conviction,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Muthoki Mumo. “Authorities must do the right thing and release Muhoza without further delay.”

In December 2024, Mukaza High Court, in eastern Bujumbura province, convicted Muhoza of undermining the integrity of Burundi’s national territory and inciting ethnic hatred, in connection with comments she made in a journalists’ WhatsApp group, and sentenced her 21 months in prison.

The Bujumbura Mairie Court of Appeal, in a May 30, 2025judgment reviewed by CPJ, said that it and the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to hear Muhoza’s case. It cited a law on judicial procedures, which stipulates that a defendant should be tried by a court in the region where they were arrested, live, or where the crime was allegedly committed. 

Muhoza was arrested in the northern Ngozi region where she lived. The appeal court ordered that the case be referred to a competent court.

Burundian authorities have previously convicted other journalists for anti-state crimes, such as Floriane Irangabiye, who in 2023 was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of undermining the integrity of the national territory. She was released in August 2024, following a presidential pardon.

CPJ’s emails to the justice ministry, and text messages to justice minister Domine Banyankimbona, interior ministry spokesperson Pierre Nkurikiye, Prosecutor General’s Office spokesperson Agnès Bagiricenge, and government spokesperson Jérôme Niyonzima did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Amaglobeli, founder and director of award-winning independent news outlets Batumelebi and Netgazeti, has been unjustly detained since January on the charge of attacking a police officer, for which she faces up to seven years in jail. The charge has been widely condemned as disproportionate and politically motivated.

The organizations condemned the smear campaigns against and degrading treatment of Amaglobeli, who has become a symbol of the resilience of Georgian independent media.

Read the full statement here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Tapajós River: Legal Analysis of the Brazilian Environmental Legislation (Rio Tapajós Análise Jurídico da Legislação Ambiental Brasileira) and its accompanying executive summary, Tapajós River: Prospects for Permanent Protection, shows how the combined effects of climate change, dams, unregulated mining, and other large-scale infrastructure harm Indigenous and frontline communities, and undermine the environment and biodiversity. It highlights measures that affected peoples can take to protect the Tapajós River Basin, including securing permanent legal protections.

Encompassing over 493,000 square kilometers across the Pará, Mato Grosso, and Amazonas states, the Tapajós is one of the Amazon’s most biodiverse river systems, home to over 300 fish species, including giant piraíba catfish and colorful tucunaré, and endangered river turtles like the tracajá and the giant Amazon turtle. Seasonal flood cycles shape a dynamic landscape of várzea, igarapés, igapó forests, and wetlands — vital nurseries for fish, nesting sites for turtles, and feeding grounds for migratory birds. This vast watershed regulates the hydrological cycle across a significant portion of the Amazon, supports food and water security for riverine and Indigenous populations, and contributes to climate regulation at regional and global scales. For local Indigenous communities, its waters are sacred—tied to origin stories, traditional knowledge, and survival.

Hydroelectric development threatens the Tapajós River system. As of January 2024, 180 hydroelectric projects have been planned on the Juruena River alone. Four major dams—the Teles Pires, Colíder, São Manoel, and Sinop—have fundamentally altered the river basin's hydrology and ecology. Brazil’s piecemeal regulatory system means that each new project is not considered in conjunction with existing ones, so their long-term cumulative effects are often underestimated.

Furthermore, 2,000 illegal mines operate with virtual impunity throughout the river system, representing an estimated 75% of all mining activity in the region. This has left a scar on Indigenous communities. Studies by the Fiocruz Foundation reveal that more than 60% of Munduruku Indigenous community members tested in certain areas exhibit elevated mercury levels, with more than half of the Munduruku people—including children—showing unsafe mercury concentrations in their bodies.

“Although Brazil’s current regulatory framework fails to account for the ecological and human rights violations imposed by large-scale infrastructure, our new research identifies innovative new pathways for frontline communities to reclaim their rivers and their rights,” said Flávio Montiel of International Rivers. “With the upcoming COP30 in Belem, all eyes will be on Brazil. Now is the time for Brazil to be a world leader in the management and protection of nature and human rights by legally recognizing the rights of rivers in the Tapajós Basin.”

Brazil currently has the legal tools to protect communities and their resources from the climate crisis. The country’s Constitutional Article 225 establishes environmental protection as both a governmental obligation and a fundamental human right. Working in tandem with this provision, Article 231 recognizes Indigenous Peoples' original rights to their lands, including their customs, languages, beliefs, and traditions, mandating that public authorities demarcate, protect, and respect all their assets. Further protections also include a review of the State System of Nature Conservation Units (SEUC). This legislation introduced an innovative conservation category called “Rivers of Special Protection” – specifically designed to protect waterways of exceptional value. The Law also provides provisions for the restoration of freshwater ecosystems, making the Rivers of Special Protection designation a promising model for river conservation that could be replicated across Brazil’s river systems.

Ultimately, protecting the Tapajós River system demands a multi-level strategy that leverages Brazil’s existing legal frameworks while addressing structural weaknesses in implementation and enforcement. Moving beyond traditional environmental regulation, the report offers a framework that aligns with Indigenous worldviews and suggests enforceable protections grounded in legal innovations.

It calls on policymakers in Brazil to:

-Adopt a Rights of Rivers legal framework to support communities that rely on the Tapajós River Basin for cultural, physical, and economic sustenance;

-Coordinate action among Federal and State Public Agencies to ensure jurisdictional alignment and robust legal enforcement across federal, state, and municipal levels;

-Implement real-time channels for communities to report violations;

-Establish Popular Committees in the Tapajos River Basin and build capacity for representatives of local social organizations, to ensure effective participation of civil society, for the future creation of the Tapajos River Basin Committee;

-Close legal and institutional loopholes by implementing a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the entire Tapajós basin that includes cumulative and synergic impacts, to ensure that the long-term consequences of development are considered.

The report calls on frontline and Indigenous communities to exercise their rights to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent by:

-Pursuing strategic litigation to challenge harmful projects and regulatory failures;

Serving as co-litigants in precedent-setting cases defending rivers’ rights and ecological limits.

“Ultimately, a nation's environmental conscience can be measured not by the depth of its laws, but by the quality of its waters—and both can run muddy despite the best of intentions written on paper,” said Monti Aguirre of International Rivers.

Read the report.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on July 24, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

Israel is accelerating its efforts to cement its permanent control over the West Bank through a number of sweeping legal and institutional changes, according to a new report from Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

The 87-page report, Legal Structures of Distinction, Separation, and Territorial Domination, describes the ways in which the Netanyahu government is rapidly building on a long-standing legal matrix that further threatens Palestinians’ right to self-determination. 

“These developments are not something new to us,” Dr. Suhad Bishara, Legal Director of Adalah and lead author of the report, told Mondoweiss. “All eyes are on Gaza, justifiably so,” she said. “However… it is important to highlight the intensity of the structural changes that have taken place since the current government took over in December 2022.”

“What is happening in the West Bank is dangerously fast-forwarding annexation policies in a blatant violation of international law,” Bishara said. “Israel is intensifying measures to change the status of the West Bank, the status of many Palestinians living in Area C who are subject to intensified displacement induced by settler violence and Israeli policies.” She said, “This is in addition to settler expansion and further restrictions on Palestinian development in the area.”

Thoroughly researched and footnoted, the report documents how the current extremist government has built on what Adalah describes as “foundational mechanisms through which Israel has entrenched a land regime that facilitates territorial domination and racial segregation.” 

Area C comprises over 60 percent of the West Bank, and is under full Israeli military control. 

Here are the mechanisms of territorial domination Adalah examines in these areas.

Civilian governance for Israeli settlers; military rule over Palestinians

Beginning in the late 1970s, Israel abandoned its security-based justifications for approving settlements and adopted a policy based on civil, not military grounds. The report describes how, soon after, the Civil Administration — the Israeli body governing the West Bank — was established to formalize the division between military and civilian affairs.

As a result, “Israel has steadily transferred governance over Israeli settlers in the West Bank from military to civilian control, entrenching permanent territorial dominance and greatly expanding the settlement enterprise,” according to the report.

Most recently, structural reforms — such as the appointment of Bezalel Smotrich to serve as both Finance Minister and a Minister in the Defense Ministry — have resulted in increasing legal authority for the pro-settler civil servants working with Smotrich in the West Bank. These reforms have cemented the two distinct legal structures that govern life in Palestinian villages and Israeli settlements: the former, in which the military rules, and the latter, administered according to Israeli law. 

1. Administration by local authorities

Adalah’s report dives into the weeds as it describes one of the more concerning mechanisms that reveals Israel’s intent to annex the whole of the West Bank. Having transitioned the settlements from military administration to civilian rule — and having handed over significant legal and administrative decision-making to pro-settler civil servants — Israel can argue that the settlements operate now under Israeli sovereignty. But applying Israeli law in occupied territory, Adalah maintains, is a violation of international human rights law and constitutes “a measure of de facto annexation.” 

2. Financial incentives for settlements 

Readers of the report won’t be surprised to learn that, as Adalah writes, “Israeli settlements receive extensive financial benefits through direct government subsidies, preferential policies, and financial incentives… [covering] multiple sectors, including land allocation, housing, infrastructure, and agriculture.” 

Still, it is remarkable—as documented in the Adalah report—how in contravention of international law, Israel continues each year to pour billions of shekels into the development of settlements in the West Bank. Readers of the report will learn of “the legal mechanisms behind these incentives and how Israeli law facilitates their distribution.” 

3. Declaring State land 

According to Adalah, Israel’s designation of State Land in the West Bank is “the primary legal mechanism through which Israeli authorities have taken possession of Palestinian land since the late 1970s.” Those already familiar with Israel’s use of this means of de facto annexation will be surprised by the extraordinary amount of Palestinian land so designated. The report includes information obtained by Peace Now through a Freedom of Information Act request that shows a shocking fact: in under a one-year period, Israel has designated more Palestinian land as State Land than it had in an 18-year period.

From 1998 to 2016, just over 21,000 dunams were declared as State Land. But in just over nine months (from the end of February 2024 through early December 2024), over 24,200 dunams were declared as State Land. This acceleration is historically unprecedented.

The planning system in Area C

Adalah includes an entire section on the legal and structural framework in place in Area C to further expand Israel’s settlement project, fulfilling one of the Netanyahu government’s guiding principles shared the day before his swearing-in as Prime Minister in December 2022: “The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel,” promising to expand settlements throughout “Judea and Samaria,” the Israeli term for the occupied West Bank. 

Paralleling the judgments of the ICJ, UN experts, and international, Palestinian, and Israeli human rights groups, the report ends by listing the five international crimes that Adalah finds Israel guilt of: violations of International Humanitarian Law; the deepening of the illegal mechanism of de facto annexation; the denial of Palestinian people’s right to self-determination; the deepening of the apartheid system in the occupied Palestinian territory; and the commission of war crimes and crimes of aggression on the part of Israel.

The most recent newsletter from Ir Amim, an Israeli NGO, describes Israel’s expanding control over illegally annexed East Jerusalem. Asked to comment, Tess Miller, Public Outreach staff at Ir Amim (“City of Nations” or “City of Peoples” in Hebrew) told Mondoweiss that “the mechanisms of displacement that we monitor and advocate against within Jerusalem are not separate from the mechanisms seen today in Gaza and the West Bank.”

“What we are witnessing,” Miller said, “time after time, place after place, is violent control granted to those willing to advance the state’s agenda of expanding Jewish presence and diminishing Palestinian presence.” Ir Amim’s newsletter documents home demolitions, evictions, and starkly discriminatory housing and land confiscation policies.

“Together,” Miller said, “they all contribute to the accelerating erasure of the Palestinian people from their own cities, neighborhoods, and lands — enabled by the complicity of an increasingly radicalized Israeli public and the international community’s persistent refusal to take meaningful action.”

According to Adalah’s Dr. Bishara, it is hoped that the Adalah report, read by advocates for Palestinian rights, stakeholders, and states alike, “will generate international pressure against these long-term changes in the West Bank that violate international law and threaten the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Jeff Wright.

“The unwarranted seizure of Batumelebi and Netgazeti’s bank accounts confirms what has been clear from the start of Mzia Amaglobeli’s trumped-up trial – that authorities’ goal is to silence two of Georgia’s most respected news outlets and the courageous woman who runs them,” said CPJ Chief Global Affairs Officer Gypsy Guillén Kaiser. “Georgian authorities should lift all undue restrictions on media outlets’ accounts, release Amaglobeli, and end their campaign against the independent press.”

Batumelebi reported that Georgia’s Revenue Service seized the accounts of the outlets’ legal entity, Gazeti Batumelebi, on July 17, after previously giving it just five days to pay accumulated tax debts, interest, and penalties totaling around US$100,000.

CPJ and international partners monitored the July 14 trial of Amaglobeli, who was jailed over an altercation with a local police chief, and denounced the charges against her as “disproportionate and politicized.” A verdict is expected on August 1, with the prominent media manager facing between four and seven years in prison and declining health.

The measures “appear aimed at breaking [Amaglobeli] personally and, ultimately, destroying the media organization she founded,” Batumelebi said in its statement.

The outlet, which is known for its coverage of human rights issues and scrutiny of authorities, said it had been paying off the debt and pointed to the much higher arrears of pro-government media as a “telling example” of “the selectivity of this pressure.”

The Revenue Service said in a July 22 Facebook post that the seizure of Gazeti Batumelebi’s accounts was carried out “automatically” and it was ready to lift the measure and allow the company to cover its debts “in the event of a tax agreement.” 

Batumelebi said the Revenue Service repeatedly declined its proposed payment plans both before and after the seizure.

In recent weeks, two independent broadcasters have reported similar account seizures over tax arrears, alleging political pressure. The moves come amid an unprecedented media crackdown and authoritarian turn by the ruling Georgian Dream party, with a series of repressive new laws on the press and extensive police violence against journalists. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

A state judge ruled Tuesday that any article published by Tribuna in which the governor is mentioned must be approved by the court.

In addition, the judge directed González, who was the editorial director of the newspaper for 30 years until his retirement in 2017, to submit to the court for review any future material in which Sensores is mentioned.

“The verdict against Jorge Luis González and Tribuna is nothing less than a gag order that constitutes a clear case of the courts siding with a state governor in overt efforts to silence any critical reporting of her administration,” said Jan-Albert Hootsen, CPJ’s Mexico representative. “CPJ is alarmed by the sharp increase in lawfare against critical media in Mexico, where journalists continue to be attacked with almost complete impunity.”

The ruling by the Campeche state court is only the latest episode in the ongoing legal assault by Sansores on Tribuna and González, both of whom she sued on June 13, 2025, accusing them of spreading hatred and causing moral damages in coverage of her administration.

It is unclear which specific reports caused the governor to sue Tribuna, González told CPJ. It is also unclear why the lawsuit targets González, as he is no longer with the paper after his retirement in 2017. 

A previous ruling ordered González to pay “moral damages” of $2 million pesos (about USD$110,000) to Sansores and prohibited both the reporter and Tribuna from mentioning the governor in any reports, according to news reports. That sentence was suspended on July 9, after González successfully filed an injunction, which CPJ has reviewed, citing the Mexican Constitution’s prohibition of censorship before publication.

González said he planned to appeal, but it wasn’t immediately clear what strategies were available to him.

Several calls by CPJ to Sansores’ office for comment were unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Jan-Albert Hootsen/CPJ Mexico Representative.

A state judge ruled Tuesday that any article published by Tribuna in which the governor is mentioned must be approved by the court.

In addition, the judge directed González, who was the editorial director of the newspaper for 30 years until his retirement in 2017, to submit to the court for review any future material in which Sensores is mentioned.

“The verdict against Jorge Luis González and Tribuna is nothing less than a gag order that constitutes a clear case of the courts siding with a state governor in overt efforts to silence any critical reporting of her administration,” said Jan-Albert Hootsen, CPJ’s Mexico representative. “CPJ is alarmed by the sharp increase in lawfare against critical media in Mexico, where journalists continue to be attacked with almost complete impunity.”

The ruling by the Campeche state court is only the latest episode in the ongoing legal assault by Sansores on Tribuna and González, both of whom she sued on June 13, 2025, accusing them of spreading hatred and causing moral damages in coverage of her administration.

It is unclear which specific reports caused the governor to sue Tribuna, González told CPJ. It is also unclear why the lawsuit targets González, as he is no longer with the paper after his retirement in 2017. 

A previous ruling ordered González to pay “moral damages” of $2 million pesos (about USD$110,000) to Sansores and prohibited both the reporter and Tribuna from mentioning the governor in any reports, according to news reports. That sentence was suspended on July 9, after González successfully filed an injunction, which CPJ has reviewed, citing the Mexican Constitution’s prohibition of censorship before publication.

González said he planned to appeal, but it wasn’t immediately clear what strategies were available to him.

Several calls by CPJ to Sansores’ office for comment were unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Jan-Albert Hootsen/CPJ Mexico Representative.

“Malawi’s Constitutional Court has taken a monumental step towards protecting press freedom and affirmed that criticism and dissent are essential to democracy by ruling criminal defamation to be unconstitutional,” said Muthoki Mumo, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator, in Nairobi. “Authorities should immediately comply with the judgment, and other laws that may unduly restrict the work of journalists must also be reformed.” 

In a unanimous decision, three constitutional court justices ruled that the defamation law was a “disproportionate and unjustifiable limitation on constitutional freedom,” according to a summary of the judgment reviewed by CPJ.

The ruling follows social media influencer and activist Joshua Chisa Mbele’s 2022 legal challenge of criminal defamation charges for his remarks about a military official.

In its decision, the court ordered that no further prosecutions on criminal defamation charges be brought under the law.

The Malawian chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa and other civil society organizations urged the government not to appeal the ruling and to reform other laws that restrict free expression. Section 60 of Malawi’s penal code criminalizes publishing false news, with penalties of fines or up to two years in jail, and the 2016 Electronic Transactions and Cyber Security Act makes unauthorized transmitting data or information punishable by a fine of 2,000,000 Malawian kwacha (USD $1,153) and a 5-year imprisonment. 

In 2022, Malawi amended its Protected Flag, Emblems, and Names Act of 1967, to decriminalize insults against the president but retained prison time for those convicted of insults to flags or protected emblems.

Malawi Attorney General Thabo Chakaka Nyirenda did not respond to CPJ’s calls or text messages for comment on the court’s decision.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on July 17, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

Speaking about Palestine is speaking about resistance in the heart of horror. That is how Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, summed it up at an emergency conference in Bogotá, Colombia. The same Albanese who is currently facing sanctions imposed by the U.S. government for, according to them, making antisemitic remarks, after repeatedly denouncing the brutalities committed by Israel against the Palestinian people.

Despite these accusations, Albanese remains firm in her denunciations. She reiterated on several occasions that we must not allow these actions to distract us from what truly matters: the genocide that, for the past twenty months, has escalated against the people of Gaza, and the massive human rights violations taking place across Palestine, which have left more than 60,000 people dead, most of them women and children.

“The global majority [also known as the Global South] has been the driving force behind actions against Israel’s genocide, with South Africa and Colombia playing key roles in this process,” she told Mondoweiss during a press conference on the first day of the Emergency Conference for Gaza, convened by the governments of Colombia and South Africa. “These actions have led to the creation of spaces for sanctions and resistance. What we’ve been insisting on all along is that more and more countries must join these efforts.”

The Hague Group coordinated this Emergency Conference, which brought together representatives from over 30 states, including China, Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Turkey, and Qatar. Initially formed by Colombia and South Africa, the group seeks to establish specific sanctions against Israel that, according to Colombia’s Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs, Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir, aim to move beyond discourse and into action.

Heads of state and their representatives emphasized that these sanctions are not retaliatory but are in full compliance with international humanitarian law. They are part of the international community’s commitment to ending the genocide. One of the central calls made was for more nations to join this effort and uphold their duty to defend human rights.

All 30 participating states unanimously agreed that “the era of impunity must end— and that international law must be enforced.” To begin this effort, 12 states from across the world — Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa — committed to implementing six key points:

1. Prevent the provision or transfer of arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel, as appropriate, to ensure that our industry does not contribute the tools to enable or facilitate genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other violations of international law.

2. Prevent the transit, docking, and servicing of vessels at any port, if applicable, within our territorial jurisdiction, while being fully compliant with applicable international law, including UNCLOS, in all cases where there is a clear risk of the vessel being used to carry arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel, to ensure that our territorial waters and ports do not serve as conduits for activities that enable or facilitate genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other violations of international law.

3. Prevent the carriage of arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel on vessels bearing our flag, while being fully compliant with applicable international law, including UNCLOS, ensuring full accountability, including de-flagging, for non-compliance with this prohibition, not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

4. Commence an urgent review of all public contracts, in order to prevent public institutions and public funds, where applicable, from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territory which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory, to ensure that our nationals, and companies and entities under our jurisdiction, as well as our authorities, do not act in any way that would entail recognition or provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

5. Comply with our obligations to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law through robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, in compliance with our obligation to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes.

6. Support universal jurisdiction mandates, as and where applicable in our legal constitutional frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Both Jaramillo and Zane Dangor, Director-General of South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation, emphasized that these actions must not be seen as reprisals, but rather as part of an international effort to break the global silence that has enabled atrocities in Palestine.

This decision is aligned with Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s renewed order to halt all coal exports from Colombia to Israel: “My government was betrayed, and that betrayal, among other things, cast doubt on my order to stop exporting coal to Israel. We are the world’s fifth-largest coal exporter, which means the country of life is helping to kill humanity. Colombian coal is still being shipped to Israel. We prohibited it, and yet we are being tricked into violating that decision. We cannot allow Colombian coal to be turned into bombs that help Israel kill children.”

In his closing speech, Petro reaffirmed that Colombia would break all arms trade relations with Israel and would continue to support the Palestinian people’s right to resist.

The legitimacy of the Hague Group and these decisions has also been backed by several multilateral organizations that have denounced the genocide. As Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla, Executive Secretary of the Hague Group, stated: “The International Criminal Court (ICC) has already clearly denounced the genocide. The United Nations has stated that Gaza is the hungriest place on Earth. What we lack now is not clarity, it’s courage. We need the bravery to take the necessary actions”.

These words were echoed by Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Mansour, who emphasized that, together with the Madrid Group (a coalition of over 20 European and Arab countries also taking action against Israel and led by Spain), they could be the key to breaking Israel’s siege of horror: “This will not be an exercise in theatrical politics. The time has come for concrete, effective action to stop the crimes and end the profiteering from genocide. We will defeat these crimes against humanity and give the children who are still alive in Palestine a future full of promise, independence, and dignity. Recognizing Palestine is not a symbolic gesture, it is a concrete act of resistance against colonial expansion”.

His statement was followed by that of Palestinian-American doctor Thaer Ahmad, who worked in Nasser Hospital in Gaza and left the territory two months ago. In his testimony, he said he is certain that official death tolls do not even come close to reality, that Gaza is currently hell on Earth, and that every day the genocide continues brings devastating consequences for Palestinian children: “How can we look ourselves in the mirror? When this ends, if it ends, what will we say? ‘Sorry, we did everything we could’? They can’t afford to keep waiting for vague responses. They are surviving genocide every day. So now, how do we ensure that the effort to erase Palestinians from history does not succeed?”

Although the agreed-upon actions are significant, even the attending delegations acknowledge that their efforts will not be enough. Broader and more forceful measures are required. Yet, one day earlier, standing at the podium of Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Francesca Albanese reaffirmed the historic importance of this event. She stated it could be: “A historical turning point that ends, with concrete measures, the genocide-based economy that has sustained Israel. I came to this meeting believing that the narrative is shifting. Hope must be a discipline that we all preserve.”

Correction: The original version of this article said that all 30 countries participating in the gathering had endorsed the six action points. The article has been updated to make clear that only 12 of the participating countries have committed to implementing the measures at this time.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by María F. Fitzgerald.

“The forcible transfer of journalist Comlan Hugues Sossoukpé by Côte d’Ivoire to Benin, despite his refugee status in Togo, sends a worrying message to journalists across the region,” said Moussa Ngom, CPJ’s Francophone Africa representative. “He must be released immediately and unconditionally. Such aggressive, transnational tactics illustrate a cross-border collaboration to muzzle a critical journalist.”

On July 14, 2025, a judge at Benin’s Court for the Repression of Economic Offences and Terrorism (CRIET) upheld Sossoukpè’s detention in the southern city of Ouidah, pending a judicial investigation on charges of inciting rebellion, inciting hatred and violence, harassing through electronic communication, and apology for terrorism, according to a copy of the decision seen by CPJ.

Sossoukpè was in Côte d’Ivoire to cover a government conference when he was arrested. He has been living in Togo since 2019 and has held refugee status there since receiving threats in Benin, where he is from, related to his work.

Sossoukpè told Maximin Pognon, his lawyer, who spoke to CPJ, that four people identifying themselves as Ivorian law enforcement officers and a fifth as a “colonel of the gendarmerie” asked him to respond to a summons. But Sossoukpè recognized two of them as Beninese police officers, Pognon said.

Sossoukpè said he demanded that they bring him before a judge, which they agreed to, but did not. Instead, they seized his phone and computer, took him briefly to an Ivorian law enforcement headquarters, and then escorted him aboard a plane that took him to Benin.

Two people close to the case who asked not to be named for privacy reasons said that during the days before his arrest, Sossoukpè had alerted his friends that there were kidnapping plans against him.

CPJ’s calls and WhatsApp messages to Andy Kouassi, public relations director of the Ivorian ministry of communication, and to Wilfried Léandre Houngbédji, spokesperson for the Beninese government, as well as CPJ’s email to the Ivorian gendarmerie, went unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The letter notes the persistence of serious issues in Greece, including surveillance, threats, harassment, physical attacks, and murders of journalists. It also cites government pressure on editorial and media independence, including Greece’s public broadcaster, as well as legal threats, such as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and criminal defamation.

The organizations asked national authorities to provide, in writing, an overview of the steps being considered to address the concerns, and to establish a national action plan.

Read the full letter here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

In a major new New York Times exposé on health insurance behemoth UnitedHealth, deputy investigations editor David Enrich reveals how the largest insurer in the country works to intimidate and silence critics of its often predatory and exploitative treatment of patients. While “companies do this kind of stuff all the time,” Enrich says, UnitedHealth’s lawyers “were really going after some fairly obscure stuff, and that suggested to me that this was a campaign of desperation.” Enrich’s investigation found instances of this “very aggressive campaign to shut down criticism and scrutiny” from even before the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December. UnitedHealthcare is one of two main subsidiaries, alongside Optum, of UnitedHealth. Enrich discusses the experiences of some of these critics, from doctors on TikTok to newspaper reporters like himself.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The new regulations establish fines of 20,000 soms (US$230) for individuals, and 65,000 soms (US$740) against outlets found to have violated the law.

“The new law on so-called fake news is just one element of a broader legislative campaign under President Japarov aimed at restricting media, civil society, and public discourse in Kyrgyzstan,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Kyrgyz authorities should repeal the law and reverse their escalating legal assault on the independent press.”

The new false news legislation follows similar amendments that went into force in February. These introduced identical administrative fines for defamation and insult. In both cases, complaints are handled by the police and adjudicated in brief administrative court hearings, which journalists fear will allow authorities to swiftly fine media and avoid a thorough judicial review.

Since Japarov came to power in 2020, Kyrgyz authorities have dramatically expanded their arsenal of laws targeting the press while shuttering critical outlets and jailing journalists. A 2021 law empowers the government to extrajudicially block news websites for what it deems false news, and in 2024, Japarov enacted a Russian-style foreign agent law.

On June 25, parliament passed a controversial mass media that allows the government to determine which individuals and organizations are permitted to publish news. The law has sparked criticism from journalists and international organizations such as CPJ, which urged Japarov to veto the bill. 

The president stated earlier this month that he has not yet reviewed the mass media law and will decide whether to sign or return it after careful consideration.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Lauren Wolfe.

The Fiji government looks set to pay around NZ$1.5 million in damages to the disgraced former head of the country’s anti-corruption agency FICAC.

The state is offering Barbara Malimali an out-of-court settlement after her lawyer lodged a judicial review of her sacking in the High Court in Suva.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka suspended Malimali from her role on May 29, following a damning Commission of Inquiry into her appointment.

• READ MORE: Other FICAC reports

Malimali was described as “universally corrupt” by Justice David Ashton-Lewis, the commissioner of the nine-week investigation, which involved 35 witnesses.

“She was a pawn in the hands of devious members of government, who wanted any allegations against them or other government members thrown out,” Ashton-Lewis told RNZ Pacific Waves earlier this month.

Tanya Waqanika, who acts for Malimali, told RNZ Pacific that her client was seeking a “substantial” payout for damages and unpaid dues.

Waqanika met lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Office in the capital, Suva, on Tuesday after earlier negotiations failed.

Expected to hear in writing
She declined to say exactly what was discussed, but said she expected to hear back in writing from the other party the same day.

A High Court judge has given the government until 3pm on Friday to reach a settlement, otherwise he will rule on the application on Monday.

“We’ll see what they come up with, that’s the beauty of negotiations, but NZ$1.5 million would be a good amount to play with after your career has been ruined,” Waqanika said.

“[Malimali’s] career spans over 27 years, but it is now down the drain thanks to Ashton-Lewis and the damage the inquiry report has done.”

She said Malimali also wanted a public apology, as she was being defamed every day in social media.

“I don’t expect we’ll get one out of Ashton-Lewis,” she said.

Adjournment sought
During a hearing in the High Court on Monday, lawyers for the state sought an adjournment to discuss a settlement with Waqanika.

However, she opposed this, saying that the government’s legal team had vast resources and they should have been prepared for the hearing.

Malimali filed a case against President Naiqama Lalabalavu, Rabuka and the Attorney-General on June 13 on the grounds that her suspension was unconstitutional.

Waqanika said the President suspended her on the advice of the Prime Minister instead of consulting the Judicial Services Commission.

Government lawyers approached Waqanika offering a compensation deal the same day she lodged a judicial review in the High Court.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Fiji government looks set to pay around NZ$1.5 million in damages to the disgraced former head of the country’s anti-corruption agency FICAC.

The state is offering Barbara Malimali an out-of-court settlement after her lawyer lodged a judicial review of her sacking in the High Court in Suva.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka suspended Malimali from her role on May 29, following a damning Commission of Inquiry into her appointment.

• READ MORE: Other FICAC reports

Malimali was described as “universally corrupt” by Justice David Ashton-Lewis, the commissioner of the nine-week investigation, which involved 35 witnesses.

“She was a pawn in the hands of devious members of government, who wanted any allegations against them or other government members thrown out,” Ashton-Lewis told RNZ Pacific Waves earlier this month.

Tanya Waqanika, who acts for Malimali, told RNZ Pacific that her client was seeking a “substantial” payout for damages and unpaid dues.

Waqanika met lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Office in the capital, Suva, on Tuesday after earlier negotiations failed.

Expected to hear in writing
She declined to say exactly what was discussed, but said she expected to hear back in writing from the other party the same day.

A High Court judge has given the government until 3pm on Friday to reach a settlement, otherwise he will rule on the application on Monday.

“We’ll see what they come up with, that’s the beauty of negotiations, but NZ$1.5 million would be a good amount to play with after your career has been ruined,” Waqanika said.

“[Malimali’s] career spans over 27 years, but it is now down the drain thanks to Ashton-Lewis and the damage the inquiry report has done.”

She said Malimali also wanted a public apology, as she was being defamed every day in social media.

“I don’t expect we’ll get one out of Ashton-Lewis,” she said.

Adjournment sought
During a hearing in the High Court on Monday, lawyers for the state sought an adjournment to discuss a settlement with Waqanika.

However, she opposed this, saying that the government’s legal team had vast resources and they should have been prepared for the hearing.

Malimali filed a case against President Naiqama Lalabalavu, Rabuka and the Attorney-General on June 13 on the grounds that her suspension was unconstitutional.

Waqanika said the President suspended her on the advice of the Prime Minister instead of consulting the Judicial Services Commission.

Government lawyers approached Waqanika offering a compensation deal the same day she lodged a judicial review in the High Court.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Senegal’s special cybersecurity division (DSC) arrested Gadiaga over his remarks during a July 4, 2025, broadcast about Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko. On July 14, 2025, a judge opened a judicial investigation and charged Gadiaga with spreading false news, immoral speech, insulting a person exercising the prerogatives of the head of state, and receiving or soliciting donations in order to engage in propaganda likely to disturb public order, his lawyer, El Hadji Omar Youm, told news outlets.

During the broadcast on private television channel Télé Futurs Médias (TFM), Gadiaga responded to criticism from a ruling party official by saying that the party should not give lessons in ethics because its leader, Sonko, had been “convicted of sexual abuse.” Sonko was sentenced in absentia in June 2023 to two years in prison for the “corruption of youth.” 

In April, Sonko said his opponents were using journalists and “so-called news commentators” to spread false news and defame authorities.

“These charges represent an escalation in the government’s punitive attitude toward the media and promote a dangerous conflation between the press and the political opposition,” said Moussa Ngom, CPJ’s Francophone Africa representative. “Senegalese authorities must release news commentators Badara Gadiaga, Abdou Nguer, and Bachir Fofana, and refrain from reprisals against the media for their criticism. Alleged press offenses should not be criminalized.”

On July 10, Sonko alluded to the TV debate during a meeting with his party’s leadership and recommended that party members “stop going to television stations that fight [the party]. …I fight those who fight me, and let those who use their tools to fight me know that I will go to the end.” He also called for a boycott of “television stations that fight him.”

L’Observateur, a newspaper owned by the same parent company as TFM, Groupe Futurs Médias, responded to Sonko’s comments with an editorial saying: “We are not a media affiliate of a party, nor a propaganda battalion, nor an instrument of validation. We are a newsroom.”

Separately, deliberation of the trial of commentator Bachir Fofana, detained for allegedly spreading false news, has been postponed to July 16, and another commentator, Abdou Nguer, has remained in prison since April on various charges.

CPJ’s calls to Sonko’s office and the justice ministry went unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

In response to the hearing, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), International Press Institute (IPI), and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) – called on Monday for Amaglobeli’s immediate release. Ambassadors and diplomats from the European Union mission and seven countries also attended the hearing, in which Amaglobeli provided detailed testimony for nearly three hours.

A prominent  journalist and founder of the online news outlets Gazeti Batumelebi and Netgazeti, Amaglobeli has been unjustly held in pretrial detention since her arrest on January 12.

“Today’s proceedings show that the trial of Mzia Amaglobeli is shrouded in a shocking smear campaign to destroy her credibility, personally and as a journalist. This, along with her deteriorating health, is deeply troubling and must end. Amaglobeli’s powerful testimony reflects her deep commitment to Georgia and to a free and independent media. Journalism is not a crime.”  

— Gypsy Guillén Kaiser, Chief Global Affairs Officer, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

“The proceedings we witnessed today only confirm our position that this charge against Mzia Amaglobeli is entirely disproportionate and must be dropped. We are also deeply concerned by what appears to be an effort to smear her and to call into question her credibility as a journalist. Mzia is a highly respected, veteran journalist known for her commitment to journalistic ethics and independence. We fully stand by her as an IPI member.”

 — Amy Brouillette, Director of Advocacy, International Press Institute (IPI).

“This hearing once again underlined the lack of foundation in this case. The defense pointed to serious procedural irregularities, including politically charged that should have no place in an ongoing trial. Video footage also called into question the credibility of the alleged victim. Mzia Amaglobeli gave a calm and determined testimony, recalling her arrest and reaffirming her commitment to independent journalism — values for which she is now being prosecuted.”

— Jeanne Cavelier, Head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk

Amaglobeli has been charged under the criminal code with attacking a police officer – a charge widely viewed as excessive and politically motivated – which carries a sentence of up to seven years in prison. She has been held in pre-trial detention since January 12, during which time her health has declined and she has been struggling with deteriorating vision.

She is being held at the Rustavi Women’s Prison No. 5, south of the capital Tbilisi. CPJ, IPI, and RSF visited the prison site and stood outside in a gesture of solidarity on July 13. The court’s verdict on this case could be announced at a subsequent hearing, set for July 28.

Amaglobeli is the first woman journalist to be jailed since the country gained its independence in 1991. A widely respected figure known for upholding the highest journalistic standards, her arrest and detention are seen by many in the journalism community in Georgia as a deliberate attempt to intimidate and silence the independent press amidst a broader crackdown on civil society and dissent. Last week, 17 European foreign ministers and the European Union’s High Representative, expressed deep concern regarding “increasing repression” in Georgia.

The outlets founded by Amaglobeli nearly 25 years ago, have reported on human rights violations and corruption, serving the public with impartial, trustworthy news. These outlets have endured four political regimes in Georgia’s post-independence era, despite their journalists and editors being attacked, threatened, blackmailed and detained by authorities. 

Amaglobeli’s detention this January comes amid growing harassment of independent media in Georgia and a broader scaling back of democratic freedoms under the Georgian Dream ruling party. Over the past year, journalists in Georgia have been beaten, harassed, detained, jailed, smeared, and fined. Impunity for attacks on journalists, including those perpetrated by police, remains widespread. A wave of repressive legislation – such as the foreign agents law as well as amendments to the Law on Grants and the Law of Broadcasting – deliberately aims to prevent independent media from operating in Georgia. 

As members of the Media Freedom Coalition’s Consultative Network, CPJ, IPI and RSF have urged robust action regarding Amaglobeli’s detention, along with broader concerns about escalating attacks on press freedom that can weaken democracy in Georgia. 

Read more: CPJ’s remarks during a site visit to Rustavi Women’s Prison on July 13, 2025

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

In response to the hearing, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), International Press Institute (IPI), and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) – called on Monday for Amaglobeli’s immediate release. Ambassadors and diplomats from the European Union mission and seven countries also attended the hearing, in which Amaglobeli provided detailed testimony for nearly three hours.

A prominent  journalist and founder of the online news outlets Gazeti Batumelebi and Netgazeti, Amaglobeli has been unjustly held in pretrial detention since her arrest on January 12.

“Today’s proceedings show that the trial of Mzia Amaglobeli is shrouded in a shocking smear campaign to destroy her credibility, personally and as a journalist. This, along with her deteriorating health, is deeply troubling and must end. Amaglobeli’s powerful testimony reflects her deep commitment to Georgia and to a free and independent media. Journalism is not a crime.”  

— Gypsy Guillén Kaiser, Chief Global Affairs Officer, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

“The proceedings we witnessed today only confirm our position that this charge against Mzia Amaglobeli is entirely disproportionate and must be dropped. We are also deeply concerned by what appears to be an effort to smear her and to call into question her credibility as a journalist. Mzia is a highly respected, veteran journalist known for her commitment to journalistic ethics and independence. We fully stand by her as an IPI member.”

 — Amy Brouillette, Director of Advocacy, International Press Institute (IPI).

“This hearing once again underlined the lack of foundation in this case. The defense pointed to serious procedural irregularities, including politically charged that should have no place in an ongoing trial. Video footage also called into question the credibility of the alleged victim. Mzia Amaglobeli gave a calm and determined testimony, recalling her arrest and reaffirming her commitment to independent journalism — values for which she is now being prosecuted.”

— Jeanne Cavelier, Head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk

Amaglobeli has been charged under the criminal code with attacking a police officer – a charge widely viewed as excessive and politically motivated – which carries a sentence of up to seven years in prison. She has been held in pre-trial detention since January 12, during which time her health has declined and she has been struggling with deteriorating vision.

She is being held at the Rustavi Women’s Prison No. 5, south of the capital Tbilisi. CPJ, IPI, and RSF visited the prison site and stood outside in a gesture of solidarity on July 13. The court’s verdict on this case could be announced at a subsequent hearing, set for July 28.

Amaglobeli is the first woman journalist to be jailed since the country gained its independence in 1991. A widely respected figure known for upholding the highest journalistic standards, her arrest and detention are seen by many in the journalism community in Georgia as a deliberate attempt to intimidate and silence the independent press amidst a broader crackdown on civil society and dissent. Last week, 17 European foreign ministers and the European Union’s High Representative, expressed deep concern regarding “increasing repression” in Georgia.

The outlets founded by Amaglobeli nearly 25 years ago, have reported on human rights violations and corruption, serving the public with impartial, trustworthy news. These outlets have endured four political regimes in Georgia’s post-independence era, despite their journalists and editors being attacked, threatened, blackmailed and detained by authorities. 

Amaglobeli’s detention this January comes amid growing harassment of independent media in Georgia and a broader scaling back of democratic freedoms under the Georgian Dream ruling party. Over the past year, journalists in Georgia have been beaten, harassed, detained, jailed, smeared, and fined. Impunity for attacks on journalists, including those perpetrated by police, remains widespread. A wave of repressive legislation – such as the foreign agents law as well as amendments to the Law on Grants and the Law of Broadcasting – deliberately aims to prevent independent media from operating in Georgia. 

As members of the Media Freedom Coalition’s Consultative Network, CPJ, IPI and RSF have urged robust action regarding Amaglobeli’s detention, along with broader concerns about escalating attacks on press freedom that can weaken democracy in Georgia. 

Read more: CPJ’s remarks during a site visit to Rustavi Women’s Prison on July 13, 2025

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed against the outlet by Kyrgyz prosecutors in April, which alleged “negative” and “destructive” coverage of the government. 

“The Kyrgyz authorities must allow Aprel TV to continue its work unhindered and should not contest any appeal of the court’s Wednesday order to shutter the independent broadcaster and terminate its broadcasting and social media operations,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Kyrgyzstan’s international partners – particularly the European Union, whose parliament and member states are in the process of ratifying a new partnership agreement – must hold Kyrgyzstan to account for its spiraling press freedom abuses.” 

The judge accepted prosecutors’ arguments that the outlet’s reporting, which often included commentary and reports critical of the government, could “provoke calls for mass unrest with the aim of a subsequent seizure of power,” according to CPJ’s review of the verdict. 

Aprel TV’s editor-in-chief Dmitriy Lozhnikov told privately owned news website 24.kg that criticizing the government isn’t a crime, but one of the core functions of the press. CPJ was unable to immediately confirm whether the outlet would appeal.

Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security (SCNS) summoned 10 current and former Aprel TV staff for questioning on July 1 in connection with a separate, undisclosed criminal investigation. 

The journalists’ lawyer told Radio Azattyk, the local service of U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), that investigators’ questions appeared to indicate that authorities will open a case on allegations of incitement of mass unrest or acts against the constitutional order.

CPJ’s email to the SCNS for comment on the criminal investigation did not immediately receive a reply.

Aprel TV is highly critical of the government, often adopting an irreverent tone as it broadcasts via oppositional broadcaster Next TV and reports to its 700,000 followers on several social media accounts.

Following President Sadyr Japarov’s ascent to power in 2020, Kyrgyz authorities have launched an unprecedented assault on the country’s previously vibrant media, shuttering leading outlets and jailing journalists on the grounds that their critical reporting could lead to social unrest.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“Media freedom is often a casualty of war, and Israel’s recent war with Iran is no exception. We have seen Israeli authorities use security fears to increase censorship, while extremist right-wing politicians have demonized the media, legitimizing attacks on journalists,” said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. “Despite hopes that we will see a ceasefire in Gaza this week, Israel’s government appears relentless in its determination to silence those who report critically on its military actions.”

After Haaretz newspaper published an interview with Israeli soldiers who said they were ordered to shoot at unarmed Gazans waiting for food aid, a mayor in southern Israel threatened to shut shops selling the popular liberal paper. This follows the government’s decision last year to stop advertising with Haaretz, accusing it of “incitement.”

Authorities are also pushing ahead with a bill to dismantle the public broadcaster, Kan, and shutter its news division, the country’s third-largest news channel. Meanwhile, government support has seen the right-wing Channel 14 grow in popularity.

The hostile climate fueled by Israel’s right-wing government has emboldened settler violence against journalists. On July 5, two Deutsche Welle (DW) reporters wearing press vests were attacked by Israeli settlers in Sinjil, West Bank — an incident condemned by Germany’s ambassador and the German Journalists’ Association, which called it “unacceptable that radical settlers are hunting down media professionals with impunity.” Reporters from AFP, The New York Times, and The Washington Post were also present. Palestinian journalists had to flee.

“War is a dangerous time for civil rights – rights that Netanyahu’s government is actively undermining as it moves toward dismantling democracy,” Haaretz Editor-in-Chief Aluf Benn told CPJ.

‘Broadcasts that serve the enemy’

During the Israel-Iran war of June 13 to 24, anti-press government actions included:

• A June 18 military order requiring army approval before broadcasting the aftermath of Iranian attacks on Israeli military sites. Haaretz reported that this order was illegal as it was not made public in the official government gazette or authorized by a parliamentary committee.

• On June 19, security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called on Israelis who see people watching “Al Jazeera broadcasts or reporters” to report their sightings to authorities. Israel shut down the Qatari-based outlet in May 2024, and six of its journalists have been killed while reporting on Israel’s war in Gaza. Many Arabs in Israel still watch Al Jazeera broadcasts, and former Israeli officials have appeared on the network since the shutdown. 

“These are broadcasts that serve the enemy,” Ben-Gvir said. 

• On June 20, Ben-Gvir and communications minister Shlomo Karhi issued a directive that broadcasting from impact sites without written permission would be a criminal offense.

When Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara demanded that the ministers explain the legal basis for their announcement, the ministers said she was “trying to thwart” their efforts to ensure that foreign media “don’t help the enemy target us.”

• On June 23, Haaretz reported that the police’s legal adviser issued an order giving officers sweeping powers to censor journalists reporting from the impact sites.

“This directive, which primarily targets foreign media and joins a wave of police and ministerial efforts to obstruct news coverage, is unlawful and infringes on basic rights,” Tal Hassin, an attorney with Israel’s biggest human rights group, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), told CPJ.

ACRI petitioned the Attorney General, arguing that the police adviser did not have the legal authority to issue such an order. It has not received a response.

Journalists censored, detained, and abused

CPJ subsequently documented at least four incidents involving journalists who were abused and blocked from reporting.

• On June 20, police stopped a live broadcast from Tel Aviv by Turkish state-owned broadcaster TRT’s correspondent Mücahit Aydemir, although he told the officers he had the required permits, including authorization from the military censor. For several days afterwards, Aydemir received “unsettling phone calls” from unknown Hebrew-speakers, he told CPJ.

• On June 21, privately owned Channel 13’s journalist Ali Mughrabi and a camera operator, who declined to be named, citing fear of reprisals, were expelled from a drone crash site in Beit She’an, northern Israel, despite showing their press accreditation. During a live broadcast, Deputy Mayor Oshrat Barel questioned their credentials, shoved the cameraperson, and ordered them to leave. She later apologized.

“What we’re experiencing isn’t just about the media — it’s about citizenship,” Mughrab, an Israeli citizen of Palestinian origin, told CPJ.

• On June 22, a civilian police volunteer squad, led by far-right activist and rapper Yoav Eliasi, known as “The Shadow,” detained three Jerusalem-based, Arab Israeli journalists and one international journalist, after separating them from their non-Arab colleagues outside a building in Tel Aviv that had been damaged by an Iranian strike.

Mustafa Kharouf and Amir Abed Rabbo from the Turkish state-owned Anadolu Agency, Ahmad Gharabli, with Agence France-Presse news agency, and another journalist who declined to be named, citing fear of reprisal, were held for three hours.  

Kharouf told CPJ, the unit asked them who was “Israeli” and allowed the non-Arab journalists to leave. 

“One officer accused us of working for Al Jazeera, even though we showed official press credentials,” said Kharouf.

“When I showed my ID, they told me I wasn’t allowed to film because I’m not Israeli – even though they treat us like Israelis when it comes to taxes,” Gharabli told CPJ.

Armed volunteer squads have rapidly grown from four before the October 2023 Hamas attack to around 900 new units, an expansion that “had negative effects on Arab-Jewish relations,” Dr. Ark Rudnitzky of Tel Aviv University told CPJ in an email. Squad members “tend to suspect an Arab solely because they are Arab,” he said.

“It was clear they targeted the journalists because they were Arab,” said Israeli journalist and witness Oren Ziv, who wrote about the incident.

The Central District Police told CPJ via email that the journalists were “evacuated from the building for security reasons related to their safety and were directed to alternative reporting locations.”

• On June 24,  Channel 13 correspondent Paz Robinson and a camera operator who declined to be named were reporting on a missile strike in southern Israel’s Be’er Sheva when a woman shouted that he was a “Nazi” and “Al Jazeera” and blocked him from filming, screaming, “You came to celebrate over dead bodies.”

“After I saw the woman wasn’t backing down, I decided to leave. I’m not here to fight with my own people. I’m not a politician. I came to cover events,” Robinson told CPJ.

Earlier in the war with Iran, CPJ documented eight incidents in which 14 journalists faced harassment, obstruction, equipment confiscation, incitement, or forced removal by the police.

The Israel Police Spokesperson’s Unit told CPJ via email that police “made significant efforts to facilitate safe, meaningful access for journalists” during the war with Iran.  “While isolated misunderstandings may occur…case was addressed promptly and professionally.”

CPJ’s emails to the Attorney General, Israel Defense Forces’ North America Media Desk, Ben-Gvir, and Shlomo requesting comment did not receive any replies. 

Kholod Massalha is a CPJ consultant on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory and a researcher with years of experience in press freedom and freedom of expression issues.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Mohamed Mandour.

Telemundo Atlanta reported on Monday morning that the activist group Indivisible had scheduled a protest for 6 p.m. that day at the jail.

“We are dismayed that immigration officials have decided to ignore a federal immigration court order last week granting bail to journalist Mario Guevara,” said CPJ U.S., Canada and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “Guevara is currently the only jailed journalist in the United States who was arrested in relation to his work. Immigration authorities must respect the law and release him on bail instead of bouncing him from one jurisdiction to another.”

The journalist, who was initially arrested while covering a June 14 “No Kings” protest in the Atlanta metro area and charged with three misdemeanors, which local officials declined to prosecute due to insufficient evidence. A local judge ordered Guevara to be released on bond, but he remained in custody after ICE opened a detainer against him.

The Department of Homeland Security headquarters and the department’s Atlanta field office did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The post Short Supply: Empathy, Attention, and America’s Legal Labyrinth appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

“This case sends the message that Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his administration are so fragile that they are easily threatened by a critical column,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Muthoki Mumo. “It’s also a reminder of this government’s willingness to waste public resources by throwing journalists behind bars. Authorities in Zimbabwe must release Faith Zaba unconditionally and without delay.”

Police summoned Zaba to appear at the central police station in the capital, Harare, on July 1, where they charged her over the June 27 satirical column about Mnangagwa’s government published in her newspaper, the business weekly Zimbabwe Independent, according to her lawyer, Chris Mhike. Mhike told CPJ that Zaba has been unwell and was “severely ill” at the time of her arrest.

On July 2, Zaba appeared at the magistrate’s court in Harare, where her bail hearing was deferred to July 3 after the state requested more time to verify her medical history, according to multiple local news reports.

The “Muckracker” column linked to Zaba’s arrest said that Zimbabwe was a “mafia state,” citing the administration’s alleged interference in the politics of neighboring countries, and said that the current government was “obsessed with keeping itself in power.” Under Zimbabwe’s  Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, Zaba could face a $300 fine or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, if convicted.

CPJ has documented an ongoing crackdown on dissent in Zimbabwe, amid political tension. In February, authorities arrested Blessed Mhlanga, a journalist with Alpha Media Holdings, and held him for over 10 weeks on baseless charges of incitement in connection with his coverage of war veterans who demanded Mnangagwa’s resignation. The Zimbabwe Independent is a subsidiary of Alpha Media Holdings.

A spokesperson for the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Paul Nyathi, did not answer CPJ’s calls and a query sent via messaging app requesting comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Lauren Wolfe.

The state news agency has announced a “season of traitor-killing,” with hundreds of people arrested and at least six executed since the war ended on June 25. Parliament approved a law on June 29 that mandates the death penalty for collaborating with Israel, the United States, or other “hostile” countries – a charge often used to describe media that report critically.

London-based Iran International TV spokesperson Adam Baillie said the new law would “widen the legal dragnet” against journalists and criminalizes contact with media outlets based abroad.

Journalists trying to report within Iran also face internet restrictions.

“We technically have internet, but access to the global web has been cut by half,” Hassan Abbasi, a journalist with Rokna news agency told CPJ from the capital Tehran on July 1, referring to reduced speeds and frequent disruptions.

Abbasi said internet access was selectively granted during the war. The communications ministry restricted access on June 13, the first day of the conflict, citing “special conditions.” Connectivity was largely restored after the ceasefire.

“Only large media outlets aligned with the government’s narrative were allowed to stay online,” Abbasi said. “Independent and local journalists like us couldn’t report – many agencies were effectively silenced, he said. “They wanted to cut off access to outside news and stop reports from inside.”

The June 29 law also banned the use or import of unauthorized internet communication tools like Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service, punishable by up to two years in prison.

‘Journalists are not enemies of the state’

“The arrests, internet disruptions, and intimidation of journalists during and after the Iran-Israel war reflect a troubling continuation of Iran’s ongoing efforts to control the media,” said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. “These acts of censorship undermine press freedom and create fear among those trying to report the truth. Journalists are not enemies of the state.”

Since the war began, CPJ has documented the following incidents:

• On June 15, journalist Saleh Bayrami was killed by an Israel airstrike on Tehran.

• On June 16, journalist Nima Rajabpour and media worker Masoumeh Azimi were hit by an Israeli airstrike on state-owned broadcaster IRIB’s headquarters and died the following day.

• On June 16, Shargh journalist Ali Pakzad was detained while covering airstrike damage in Tehran and released two days later.

• On June 17, freelance photojournalist Majid Saeedi was arrested in Tehran while photographing the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on IRIB’s headquarters. He told CPJ he climbed to a high point to capture images of smoke when police detained him and later transferred him to Evin prison.

“The next day, a judge reviewed my case in the prison courtyard, where officials brought over a chair for him to sit on,” Saeedi added. “He said that because I had a valid press ID and authorization, there was no issue, and he ordered my release.”

• On June 21, Iran International TV reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had detained the mother, father, and younger brother of one of its presenters to pressure her into resigning.

In a June 27 email to CPJ, spokesperson Baillie confirmed that the family members had been released but described the incident as “a profoundly worrying turning point in the type of action taken by the IRGC and security forces against the families of Iranian journalists abroad.”

• On June 21, photographer and designer Reza Daryakenari was arrested in a Tehran café. His Instagram account went offline after June 26. As of July 1, he remained in detention on unknown charges.

• On June 23, Israeli forces bombed Evin prison, which houses at least six journalists, including Iranian-American Reza Valizadeh. Authorities reported 71 deaths, including prisoners, but did not release names. One person with knowledge of Evin prison told CPJ that all the detained journalists were safe and had been transferred to other prisons.

• On June 24, the online outlet Entekhab News was blocked for “disruptive wartime reporting.” The judiciary said the outlet was undermining public security through its critical coverage. On June 30, it was unblocked.

CPJ’s emails requesting comment from Iran’s foreign affairs and information ministries did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Soran Rashid.

“This is a major blow for press freedom in the United States: A network news outlet has just caved to groundless threats from the president over its coverage,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg in New York. “This signals that the current administration–as well as any future administrations–can interfere with, or influence, editorial decisions.” 

In a lawsuit filed last year, Trump accused CBS, whose parent company is Paramount Global, of deceptively editing a ’60 Minutes’ interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris to interfere with the election. Paramount Global will pay the settlement amount, including legal fees, to Trump’s future presidential library, according to news reports.

Last month, CPJ wrote to the chair of Paramount Global, Shari Redstone, warning her that a settlement would signal that political figures can pressure news organizations into altering or censoring editorial decisions.

The FCC is investigating a merger deal between CBS parent company Paramount and Skydance, a deal that could have been endangered by the possibility of litigation from Trump. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) earlier this year re-opened a news distortion investigation into CBS.

CPJ’s request to Paramount Global for comment on the settlement’s editorial implications did not receive an immediate reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Dahmani’s lawyers withdrew from Monday’s trial to protest that the court was illegally trying her twice for the same act, the journalist’s sister, Ramla Dahmani, told CPJ, referring to the legal principle of double jeopardy.

“Handing Tunisian lawyer and media commentator Sonia Dahmani an additional two-year sentence, on top of her existing term for the same media commentary, is not only harsh, but appears to be a targeted effort to silence her personally,” said CPJ Chief Programs Officer Carlos Martínez de la Serna. “Tunisian authorities must drop all charges against Dahmani and ensure that journalists can make political commentary without being targeted.”

In October 2024, Dahman, who is also a prominent lawyer, received a two-year sentence under Decree 54 on cybercrime on charges of spreading “false” news for commenting on the local independent radio station IFM about the mistreatment of sub-Saharan Africans in Tunisia.

The court said that the second sentence on June 30 was for her comments to a second outlet, the television channel Carthage Plus.

In September 2024, Dahmani was given an eight-month sentence following her May arrest over separate comments she made on Carthage Plus, where she criticized Tunisia’s living conditions and discussed immigration.

Her case is widely seen as part of a broader crackdown on journalists, opposition figures, and government critics that has intensified since President Kais Saied suspended parliament in 2021 and introduced a new constitution, giving himself nearly unchecked power.

According to CPJ’s latest annual prison census, at least five journalists were behind bars in Tunisia on December 1, 2024, the highest number since 1992.

CPJ’s email to the Presidency requesting comment did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Guevara, an Emmy-winning, Spanish-language reporter who covers immigration on his “MGnews” Facebook page and other social media platforms, was arrested on June 14 while livestreaming a “No Kings” protest against the actions of the Trump administration in an Atlanta suburb. According to video footage of his arrest, Guevara was wearing a press pass and clearly identified himself as a journalist to law enforcement.

The initial charges that led to Guevara’s arrest were dropped by the DeKalb County solicitor-general on June 25 due to insufficient evidence. 

Guevara was transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody after the immigration authority issued a detainer against the journalist, who has authorization to work in the United States. At the time of the letter’s publication, Guevara was being held in the Folkston ICE Processing Center, his lawyer told CPJ.

Read the full letter here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Lauren Wolfe.

Democrat Pramila Jayapal is holding a series of “shadow hearings” in Congress on Trump’s immigration actions. Jayapal, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security and Enforcement, explains how Trump’s immigration crackdown has created a “Catch-22” for asylum seekers, who are being targeted for “expedited removal” at their own immigration hearings. “If you show up, you could get detained and deported. … If you don’t show up, then you are now in violation of the immigration regulations, and you’re deemed as an absconder.” Jayapal also comments on Trump’s “big, beautiful budget bill,” which she calls the “big, bad, betrayal bill” for its cuts to Medicaid and other social services.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Figueredo refused to comply with a June 23 police summons, reviewed by CPJ. On that same day she received three private number phone calls warning her that a police investigation had been opened against her and Correa for “dangerousness,” the journalists told CPJ. On June 16, a local police officer parked outside the journalists’ home told them that they weren’t allowed to leave in an incident witnessed by others in the neighborhood.

“The Cuban government must halt its harassment of journalists Yunia Figueredo and Frank Correa, and allow them to continue their work with the community media outlet, Amanecer Habanero,” said CPJ U.S., Canada and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “Reporters should not be threatened into silence with legal orders.” 

Cuba’s private media companies have come under increased scrutiny from a new communication law banning all unapproved, non-state media and prohibiting them from receiving international funding and foreign training.

Amanecer Habanero is a member of the Cuban Institute for Freedom of Expression and the Press (ICLEP), a network of six community media outlets, which has strongly condemned the actions of Cuban authorities against Figueredo, who became director of the outlet earlier this year.

In a statement, ICLEP said Figueredo has been the victim of an escalating campaign of intimidation by Cuban law enforcement, including verbal threats by state security agents; permanent police surveillance without a court order; restriction of her freedom of movement; psychological intimidation against her family; and police summonses without legal basis in connection with her work denouncing government.

Cuba’s private media companies have come under increased threat from a new communication law banning all unapproved, non-state media and prohibiting them from receiving international funding and foreign training.

Cuban authorities did not immediately reply to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Protesters took to the streets in most of Kenya’s 47 counties to mark the one-year anniversary of anti-tax demonstrations, in which at least 60 people were killed.

Several people were killed in Wednesday’s violence.

“Restricting protest coverage sends a clear message that President William Ruto’s government is not committed to democratic values or the constitutional freedoms he has vowed to protect,” said CPJ Regional Director Angela Quintal. “Authorities must investigate attacks on journalists, ensuring accountability, rescind the ban on live coverage, and desist from further censorship.”

In a directive, reviewed by CPJ, the Communications Authority of Kenya ordered “all television and radio stations to stop any live coverage of the demonstrations” or face unspecified “regulatory action.” The information technology regulator cited constitutional provisions that prevent freedom of expression involving “propaganda for war” and “incitement to violence.”

Police and Authority officials then switched off the broadcast signal of several privately owned media houses, including NTV, K24, and KTN, which continued to share content online and on social media.

Civil society organizations including the Kenya Editors’ Guild challenged the ban, citing a November High Court ruling that the Authority did not have the constitutional mandate to set or enforce media standards.

Late Wednesday, the Law Society of Kenya secured High Court orders, reviewed by CPJ, directing broadcast signals to be restored immediately.

NTV reporter Ruth Sarmwei was treated in hospital after being hit on the leg by an unknown projectile while interviewing protestors in the city of Nakuru, Joseph Openda, chairperson of the Nakuru Journalists Association, told CPJ. Standard Media Group said its photojournalist David Gichuru was “struck by a stone hurled by a protestor” in the capital Nairobi. 

CPJ’s requests for comment via email to the Communications Authority of Kenya and via messaging app to its director general David Mugonyi did not receive replies.

Police spokesperson Muchiri Nyaga declined to comment by phone. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Mostafa has faced threats, surveillance, and online gender-based violence across several countries—including Germany, Switzerland, Kenya, and Lebanon—in connection with her reporting as documented by the UN Special Rapporteurs’ report (AL EGY 6/2024).

Egypt remains one of the world’s top perpetrators of transnational repression, employing tactics such as arresting journalists’ relatives, blocking exiled media outlets, targeting journalists with spyware, and denying consular services.

Read the full statement in English here and Arabic here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

In a closed-door trial on Monday, columnist and peace activist Bahruz Samadov was sentenced by a court in the capital Baku to 15 years in prison for treason, after going on a hunger strike and attempting suicide the previous week.

On Friday, six journalists from Abzas Media, widely regarded as Azerbaijan’s most prominent anticorruption investigative outlet, were found guilty of acting as an organized group to commit multiple financial crimes, including currency smuggling, money laundering, and tax evasion, linked to alleged receipt of illegal Western donor funding:

• director Ulvi Hasanli, editor-in-chief Sevinj Vagifgizi (Abbasova), journalist Hafiz Babali – sentenced to 9 years
• reporters Nargiz Absalamova and Elnara Gasimova – sentenced to 8 years
• project coordinator Mahammad Kekalov – sentenced to 7 ½ years

In addition, journalist Farid Mehralizada from U.S. Congress-funded broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Azerbaijani service received a 9-year sentence as part of the same trial.

“The heavy sentences meted out to seven journalists in the Abzas Media case and to columnist Bahruz Samadov signal Azerbaijani authorities’ intent to wipe out what remains of independent coverage,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Reports that Samadov has attempted suicide are particularly concerning. Authorities should ensure Samadov’s wellbeing and immediately release all wrongly jailed journalists.”

Abzas Media told CPJ in a statement that the charges against their staff were “absurd and fabricated” and their “only ‘offense’ was exposing corruption, abuse of power, and informing the public of inconvenient truths.”

RFE/RL condemned Mehralizada’s sentence as a “sham” and “unnecessarily cruel.”

Treason case shrouded in secrecy

More than 20 leading Azerbaijani journalists have been jailed on charges of receiving funds from Western donors since late 2023, amid a decline in relations with the West and a surge in authoritarianism following Azerbaijan’s recapture of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, ending decades of separatist Armenian rule. 

Azerbaijan was the world’s 10th worst jailer with 13 journalists behind bars in CPJ’s latest annual prison census on December 1, 2024.

Full details of the charges against Samadov, who contributes to Georgia-based OC Media and U.S.-based Eurasianet and was detained by state security officers while visiting his family in Azerbaijan in 2024, have not been made public. Authorities classified as secret the case against Samadov, a prominent advocate for peace with neighboring Armenia and a doctoral student in the Czech Republic.

Pro-government media, which receive regular “recommendations” from authorities on what to publish, have denounced Samadov for writing “subversive” articles for the “anti-Azerbaijan” Eurasianet. His reporting, reviewed by CPJ, focuses on growing Azerbaijani militarism and authoritarianism.

‘Absurd’ charges in reprisal for corruption reporting

As the June 20 verdicts were read out, Abzas Media journalists turned their backs on the judges and held up posters of the outlet’s corruption investigations into senior officials, including the president’s family.

President Ilham Aliyev took over from his father in 2003 and won a fifth consecutive term in 2024.

Abzas Media continues to operate from exile.

Western-funded ‘spies’

Amid a major state media campaign against Western-funded “spies,” police raided Abzas Media’s office in November 2023 and said they found 40,000 euros (US$45,900), accusing U.S., French, and German embassies of funding the outlet illegally.

Police arrested the six journalists over the following three months. In 2024, Mehralizada was also detained, though he and Abzas Media denied that he worked for the outlet.

Azerbaijani law requires civil society groups to obtain state approval for foreign grants, which authorities accuse Abzas Media of failing to do.

Defense arguments, reviewed by CPJ, said that such an omission was punishable by fines, not criminal sanctions, and prosecutors did not provide evidence the journalists engaged in criminal activity. Rights advocates accuse Azerbaijan of routinely withholding permission for foreign grants and refusing to register organizations that seek them.

In February, Aziz Orujov, director of independent broadcaster Kanal 13, was sentenced to two years in prison on illegal construction charges. In December, Teymur Karimov, head of independent broadcaster Kanal 11 was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Five journalists from Toplum TV and 10 with Meydan TV face trial on similar foreign funding allegations.

Editor’s note: This text has been amended in the ninth paragraph to correct the number of journalists facing charges of receiving funds from Western donors.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“We are deeply concerned about the lack of transparency in the legislative process surrounding the Zambia Institute of Journalism Bill, which would place alarmingly restrictive controls on the media,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Muthoki Mumo. “We call on the government to ensure that this bill, which was publicly disavowed by President Hakainde Hichilema, does not become law.”

The bill would require journalists to obtain an annual license from a regulatory institute, which could be rescinded for misconduct; it has yet to be formally tabled in parliament. Those who impersonate journalists, work without a registration, or employ such individuals could face imprisonment of up to five years or fines of up to 200,000 Kwacha (US$8,000).

The justice ministry drafted the bill at the information ministry’s request, on behalf of the Media Liaison Committee, a media industry body, according to Modern Muyembe, media development director at the ministry of information. It was approved for legislative committee review in March.

The MLC’s acting chairperson, Felistus Chipako, did not respond to CPJ’s email requesting comment but was quoted by The Editor Zambia as saying that the bill sought to uphold professionalism and empower journalists.

Following an outcry from media rights and news organizations, Hichilema said he opposed the bill, saying it was not a government initiative, and that it risked undermining media independence.

Zambian media have been divided over regulation for many years. A similar bill was withdrawn in 2022 after a backlash. The High Court ruled in 1997 that compulsory registration was unconstitutional.

CPJ has recently expressed concern over the deterioration of press freedom in Zambia. In April, two cybersecurity laws giving the government broad surveillance powers were enacted amid concerns over Hichilema’s plans to amend the constitution ahead of next year’s elections.

Editor’s Note: Joan Chirwa, CPJ’s southern Africa researcher, is the founder of the Zambia Free Press Initiative, one of the organizations opposed to statutory media regulation.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Lauren Wolfe.

Guevara, an Emmy-winning, Spanish-language reporter who covers immigration on his “MGnews” Facebook page and other social media platforms, was arrested on June 14 while livestreaming a “No Kings” protest against the actions of the Trump administration in an Atlanta, Georgia suburb. According to video footage of his arrest, Guevara was wearing a press pass and clearly identified himself as a journalist to law enforcement.

Guevara was transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody after the immigration authority issued a detainer against the journalist, who has authorization to work in the United States. At the time of the letter’s publication, Guevara was being held in the Folkston ICE Processing Center.

Read the full letter here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Illusions of safety

On a Monday morning in March 2024, Professor Susan Levine, the head of the anthropology department at the University of Cape Town (UCT), received an email from a man who claimed to be “Benjy ‘Ben’ Steingold” of Tzfat, the famous “holy city” near the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel. Levine, who had never met or even heard of Steingold, was wary — the events of the previous weekend, when it came to the actions of her colleagues and fellow Jews, had shaken her badly. As she read from the top, her fears were confirmed.

“This may be the most important email you have ever received in your life,” the message began. “Please read to the end as it could give you the opportunity to change your eternal future.”

That “eternal future”, according to Steingold — or whatever the sender’s real name happened to be — would, unless Levine altered course, involve a particularly biblical form of punishment. Because she had allegedly “vilified Israel” by spreading “untruths and lies”, she was destined “in this incarnation or another reincarnation” to live under one of four enemy regimes: Hamas, Hezbollah, Isis or the Ayatollah’s Iran.

For the next 10 paragraphs, as payback for the motion that Levine had brought before the UCT senate the previous Friday, Steingold quoted a potent mix of Torah and American literature. Through it all, an undercurrent of menace flowed in a steady and self-assured stream, as exemplified in a citation from the Midrash (ancient commentaries on the Hebrew scriptures): “If you are kind to the cruel, in the end, you will be cruel to the kind.”

Two days later, on 13 March 2024, Levine would include these details in a sworn statement for the South African Police Service. At around the same time, the UCT authorities would deem the threat to her life significant enough to warrant full-time private security.

In the third paragraph of her statement, Levine would succinctly explain the motion that she had proposed to the university senate on 8 March:

“The motion was one which urged UCT to cut ties with Israeli institutions of higher education until such a time that they acknowledge the value of Palestinian lives in Gaza and [call] for an end to what the International Court of Justice calls ‘plausible’ [genocide].”

As it turned out, despite her refusal to rescind — aside from the Steingold threat, there was an attempt by UCT staff to place pressure on members of Levine’s family, with one colleague even passing on the message that her life would be “ruined” — the motion for an academic boycott did not win the requisite votes.

Still, although she could not know it at the time, Levine’s experience was fated to form a core part of one of the most significant court cases in the 195-year history of UCT.

Lodged by Professor Adam Mendelsohn on 22 August 2024, the Western Cape Division of the High Court application would attempt to overturn a pair of momentous resolutions that had been passed by the UCT council, the university’s highest decision-making body, on 22 June of that same year: first, the resolution not to adopt the international definition of anti-Semitism that encompassed anti-Zionism; and, second, the resolution to prohibit collaboration with academics or research groups affiliated to the Israel Defense Forces or the broader Israeli military establishment.

In its 150-page answering affidavit, the UCT council — represented by its chairperson, Norman Arendse — would refer to these resolutions jointly as the “Gaza resolutions,” thereby making it plain that they were a direct response to Israel’s ongoing military offensive and the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). On page 17 of the affidavit, shortly after reiterating UCT’s “zero-tolerance attitude to anti-Semitism” and acknowledging that the Jewish people had in the past been “victims of gross atrocities and genocide” themselves, Levine’s experience was mentioned for the first time.

The context, as the UCT papers explicitly stated, was that “those who expressed views in support of the Gaza resolutions” were likely to face “threats, intimidation or reprisal” if their identities were revealed. Mendelsohn, the affidavit alleged, was “probably aware” of Levine’s experience, and therefore should not have disregarded the “safety and wellbeing” of council members by going public with the case.

As examples of Mendelsohn’s alleged breach, UCT cited the publication of his founding and supplementary affidavits on Politicsweb, “with council members’ identities disclosed … regardless of the request [for anonymity]”. Also cited was reporting on the case “in pro-Israel and right-wing media in the United States”, specifically an article in Breitbart Media by its senior editor Joel Pollak, dated 15 March 2025.

What was not cited was a lengthy feature published in Haaretz, Israel’s most progressive mainstream newspaper, on 24 September 2024. Titled “‘Scary Time to Be a Zionist’: Is Africa’s Top University No Longer a Welcoming Place for Jews?”, the piece, authored by South African journalist Tali Feinberg, quoted Mendelsohn extensively.

With a link to the original founding affidavit, published on Politicsweb on 29 August 2024, Feinberg noted that the resolutions (which were — and are — yet to be implemented) “should be seen within the broader context of South Africa’s fraught relations with Israel”.

Here, while Feinberg failed to mention the exceptionally close relationship in the 1970s and 1980s between the Israeli establishment and the white supremacist apartheid regime, she did observe that “the ruling African National Congress has long backed the Palestinians”. Likewise, while she failed to acknowledge the threats directed at Levine, the fears of certain members of UCT’s Zionist student body  — most of whom would only speak to her on condition of anonymity — were the central focus of her piece.

As graduate student Esther (not her real name) told Feinberg: “If someone assaulted me for wearing a T-shirt that said ‘Am Yisrael Chai’ [‘The people of Israel live’], it wouldn’t be seen as anti-Semitic. It would be ‘anti-Zionist.’ The overlap between the two is no longer allowed to exist.”

In these inherently contested words, by Daily Maverick’s reckoning, lay the essence of the case. Levine, who in the interests of academic freedom allowed us access to her story and her name, was for us an archetypal local representative of a deeply disturbing global phenomenon — the split in world Jewry, between Zionists and anti-Zionists, that was now violently shaking the foundations of some of the most prestigious universities on Earth.

What if Einstein was an anti-Semite? 

“I am an academic, writer and member of the organisation South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP), currently residing in Cape Town,” Jared Sacks testified. “I do not disclose my residential address because SAJFP members are often subject to harassment and threats from individuals who support Israel and the ideology of Zionism.”

As the opening paragraph of the application for the admission of the SAJFP as amicus curiae (friends of the court) in the case of Mendelsohn versus the UCT council, an affidavit that Sacks deposed on behalf of his organisation on 9 June 2025, the assertion — like Levine’s story — was far from hyperbolic. A mere six weeks before, as reported, Sacks had been physically assaulted by an attendee of the Jewish Literary Festival in Cape Town, for the apparent offence of protesting Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

The incident, it turned out, was nothing new to Sacks. As a PhD graduate in Middle Eastern Studies from Columbia University in New York, he had served as a teaching fellow on undergraduate courses that delved into the highly flammable terrain of Palestinian rights.

“I have first-hand knowledge of the current climate of political repression related to pro-Palestine activism at universities in the United States,” Sacks declared in his affidavit, “including at Columbia, where a number of former colleagues and former students have been subject to harassment, doxxing, assaults, institutional pressure, procedurally unfair disciplinary processes, and unjust termination of employment due to their research and speech on Palestine.”

By Daily Maverick’s understanding, this anchoring of the UCT case in the international context, a point that the affidavit would repeat from multiple angles, was one of the primary motivations for the SAJFP applying as amicus curiae — in disentangling the religion of Judaism from the ideology of Zionism, Sacks testified, his organisation aimed to “debunk the anti-Semitic notion” that there had ever been anything like a homogenous Jewish perspective, either globally or locally, on the actions of the State of Israel.

Clearly, in emphasising “the role that anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews have played in shaping discourse on [the UCT campus]”, the affidavit was not only rejecting the attempt by Mendelsohn — director of the university’s Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies — to speak on behalf of all Jewish students and staff; it was also affirming the SAJFP’s support for free speech and institutional autonomy, particularly in the form of the Gaza resolutions.

But as important, “with billionaire philanthropists and politicians running roughshod over protected speech” at universities in the United States, the SAJFP was drawing attention to the “distinct possibility” that what had been playing out “at places like Harvard and Columbia” would “become an issue at South African universities as well”.

The question for the Western Cape Division of the High Court, of course, would be whether the SAJFP was overstating its case. And here, to offset Mendelsohn’s opposition to the application, the organisation came armed with expert witnesses.

At the top end, aside from the testimonies of Professor Steven Friedman and Professor Isaac Kamola, two local academics with deep knowledge of the issues, the SAJFP submitted an expert affidavit from Professor Joan Scott of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey — the same institute that Albert Einstein had joined in the 1930s, after seeking refuge from Nazi Germany.

Scott, as Sacks well knew, had long been a leading global critic of the definition of anti-Semitism as laid down by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA — the very definition that the UCT council had rejected in its Gaza resolutions of June 2024, and the very definition, as articulated in his founding papers, that Mendelsohn appeared to be insisting upon.

In paragraph 14 of her supporting affidavit, somewhat remarkably, Scott invoked the spirit of Einstein himself.

“Under the IHRA definition,” she testified, “rejecting the idea of a Jewish state with borders and an army, as Einstein once did, could land even the most famous Jew of the 20th century in the position of being accused of anti-Semitism. Though he was sympathetic to Zionism, Einstein’s comparison of Menachem Begin’s Herut Party massacres during the Nakba to the Nazi Party would have fallen afoul of [the IHRA definition]. In today’s academic world, he could have been fired for making such a comparison.”

In other words, according to Scott, a celebrated Jewish scholar in her mid-80s who had witnessed — and commented upon — some of the worst anti-democratic impulses of 20th-century America, the Zionist radicals of 2025 would have burnt no less a luminary than Einstein.

It was for this reason, she continued in her affidavit, that one of the original authors of the IHRA definition, Professor Kenneth Stern, came to regret what he called the “weaponising” of the definition, arguing — in an opinion piece for the Guardian published in 2019 — that “its misuse undermines efforts to detect and combat real instances of anti-Semitism”.

In the same vein, Scott added, this was also why more than a hundred Israeli and international civil society organisations, in April of 2023 — as reported, again, in the Guardian — “urged the United Nations to reject this definition”.

Ultimately, for Scott — as for Friedman and Kamola — the IHRA definition had quickly become anathema to the very idea of academic freedom. Scott, however, had been watching its effects play out on US Ivy League campuses in real time. Republican politicians, she testified, “many of them anti-Semites themselves”, were now using the “expressions of discomfort” of Zionist students and faculty to foreground anti-Semitism at the expense of all other forms of racial discrimination.

“[Zionist] students express their discomfort in terms of feeling ‘unsafe’ or ‘threatened,’” she added, “when there is little or no evidence of any physical danger they have experienced.”

Was this also the reality of Zionist fears on the UCT campus, as reported by Feinberg in Haaretz? The answer, it appeared, would be for the Western Cape Division of the High Court to decide.

For the moment, what could not be disputed was how things were turning out in the US. “The IHRA definition is now a political test for enjoying rights of free speech and academic freedom,” Scott testified. “Those who support Israel have rights of free expression, those who criticise it are punished and banned.”

The money problem

On a Saturday morning in mid-March 2025, almost a year to the day after UCT had assigned full-time security to Professor Levine, the university council was asked to make a difficult decision. With the threat of US federal funding cuts looming, most likely in the form of an abrupt halt to grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the executive orders of President Donald Trump could no longer be ignored — for one thing, as the largest recipients of NIH grants outside of the US, the university’s medical researchers were now at serious risk.

For another thing, as every member of the council was keenly aware, pro-Israel donors had already withdrawn funding — and more were threatening to withdraw — on the back of the Gaza resolutions of the previous year.

Although it had not been placed on the agenda for discussion, a motion was therefore tabled that the university should rescind the resolutions and withdraw its opposition to Mendelsohn’s high court application. In a closely contested vote, the motion failed to pass.

A few short hours later, as stated in the council’s answering affidavit, Joel Pollak of the right-wing US outlet Breitbart Media ran an article under the title, “South African university votes to keep boycott of Israel despite losing two-thirds of donor funding”. Before the end of the following week, in a similarly alarmist piece in the local Jewish Report (authored, like the Haaretz feature, by Feinberg), Rolene Marks of the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) would also note her concerns.

“This self-inflicted crisis threatens vital resources and undermines UCT’s global standing,” Marks stated on behalf of the SAZF. “It exposes the ideological capture of its leadership at the direct expense of academic freedom, financial stability and student welfare. Council members have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the university, yet some are wilfully disregarding this obligation. Their hatred of Israel outweighs their responsibility for UCT’s future.”

By Daily Maverick’s reading, this was an uncanny summary of one of the principal arguments from Mendelsohn’s founding affidavit of August 2024 — the notion that, by failing to take account of “UCT’s finances, existing relationships … and reputation”, the council had acted in an “irrational” manner.

But if Mendelsohn was indeed the source of the leaks, as alleged in the UCT answering papers, he would not admit as much to us. In response to a series of questions sent on 12 June, in which Daily Maverick also sought clarification on the publication of the names of council members, he noted his “surprise” at our email — we should “surely know”, he wrote, that it would be “improper” for him to respond while legal proceedings were pending.

Given Mendelsohn’s extensive interviews with Feinberg, we noted, we too were surprised. Still, irrespective of the source, the tenor of the media campaign against the UCT council was unmistakable — the underlying message was that the university had been financially punished for taking on the Zionists.

The SAJFP, for its part, was unimpressed. Referring in a footnote to an attendant statement from Mendelsohn’s supplementary affidavit, the organisation pointed out the obvious: “The assumption that ‘Jewish connected’ donors would have a homogeneous reaction to resolutions against Israel’s actions in Palestine is not only incorrect … it also panders to historical anti-Semitic tropes of a Jewish cabal working in unison and employing financial power to promote its political agendas.”

Of course, if the SAJFP was implying that there was no such cabal, the optics weren’t working in its favour.

Further down in its application, the organisation got at the heart of the matter, noting that since 7 October 2023 the “risk to university autonomy and academic freedom” from private donor money had become extreme, “particularly at Ivy League universities” in the US.

“Wealthy donors (with the support of politicians) have drawn on the IHRA’s conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism to pressure universities like Harvard and Columbia to ban student groups like Jewish Voices for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine,” Sacks testified. “Donor pressure has also forced the suspension and expulsion of students for peaceful protests, the militarisation of campuses by armed police and the resignation of university presidents that sought to push back on their demands.”

Unlike Harvard, the SAJFP noted, where philanthropic contributions “made up about 45 percent of all revenue in the 2024 financial year”, private donor funding made up “only ten percent” of UCT’s revenue in 2024. Still, with the overall trend in South Africa towards “increased reliance on such funding”, one of the dangers — as the SAJFP saw it — was that donors’ political views would soon play an outsized role at our universities too.

A major milestone, according to the SAJFP, had been passed in the signing of a contract between UCT and the Donald Gordon Foundation (DGF) in 2023, wherein the latter had agreed to fund the creation of a neuroscience institute (at a cost of R200-million over a 10-year period) on the proviso that UCT’s “zero-tolerance attitude to anti-Semitism” was anchored in the IHRA definition.

As the UCT council’s answering affidavit made clear, on 6 August 2024 — around six weeks after it had passed the Gaza resolutions — the DGF informed the university of its “decision to cancel … the donor agreement”. In total, the council devoted all of 24 paragraphs to the contract’s background, arguing that the IHRA clause had never been used or intended as a dealbreaker and expressing the hope that the relationship with the DGF could be restored.

But Mendelsohn, in his own papers, had left no room for doubt — not only had the UCT council sacrificed the neuroscience institute on the altar of its Gaza resolutions, he testified, it had burnt the chances of a mooted “R400- to R500-million from the DGF” for a new academic hospital too.

And likewise for the SAJFP (although from the diametrically opposed stance), there was nothing ambiguous about the DGF contract.

“If the DGF donor agreement were to be enforced,” Sacks testified, “this would mean that Zionism’s adherents on campus would be protected by the IHRA in the same way as a racial group or religion. Meanwhile, the agreement would institutionalise discrimination against those who oppose Zionism by branding them with the false label of anti-Semitism.”

The Western Cape Division of the High Court, then, was being asked to pass judgment on one of the most heated and divisive topics of the modern era — a touchpoint that was pitching students against professors, voters against politicians, Jews against Jews. For anti-Zionists like Levine and Sacks, the violence that their brethren were capable of was hardly a joke; but for Mendelsohn too, who in September 2024 had requested additional security from the university, the stakes were sky-high.

On 23 and 24 October 2025, the matter would be heard before a full Bench. Arguing for the admission of the SAJFP as amicus curiae would be Geoffrey Budlender, a graduate of UCT and one of the most respected senior counsels in South Africa. According to Sacks, Budlender had agreed to take on the case pro bono.

Given that Budlender, himself a Jew, had recently been honoured with the George Bizos Human Rights Award, it was likely to be an uncompromising show, a battle worthy of the oldest university in the country.

Would South Africa, as in the ICJ case, offer the world a lesson in moral courage?

Daily Maverick, for one, wasn’t betting against it.

• First published at Daily Maverick.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kevin Bloom.

The statement warned that independent media in Georgia may only have months left before they are forced to close as outlets now require government approval for foreign grants, broadcasters face arbitrary fines, and journalists can be jailed for up to five years for violating the “foreign agent” law.

The group also called for the immediate release of prominent media manager Mzia Amaghlobeli, who has been in pre-trial detention since January and faces up to seven years in prison on charges widely perceived as retaliatory.

Read the full statement here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The Court agreed with parts of the Sixth Circuit’s opinion that allowed the law to take effect, holding that Tennessee’s SB1 does not draw a sex-based (or a trans status-based) line and thus only necessitates deferential review by the courts. That means SB1 can remain in effect. Notably, however, the decision is based on the record in and context of the Tennessee case and therefore does not extend to other cases concerning discrimination based on transgender status.

“Today’s ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives. The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.”

“This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive,” said Sasha Buchert, Counsel and Director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal. “But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them. Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often life-saving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting.”

“Today the Supreme Court told Tennessee transgender youth and their families that they cannot access healthcare that is vitally important for a successful life,” said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee. “This ruling creates a class of people who politicians believe deserve healthcare, and a class of people who do not. We will continue to stand with transgender people in Tennessee and are committed to realizing a world where all people belong, are valued, and can access the necessary healthcare they need.”

U.S. v. Skrmetti began when a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on behalf of Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 16-year-old transgender daughter, as well as two other plaintiff families filing anonymously and Memphis-based physician Dr. Susan Lacy. The plaintiff families and Dr. Lacy argued that the law violates the Equal Protection rights of transgender adolescents. Under President Joe Biden, the United States intervened to also argue that the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After President Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. reversed its position.

Since 2021, 25 states have enacted categorical bans on gender-affirming medical care, such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, for treating gender dysphoria in transgender youth yet readily allow those same medications for other and similar purposes for cisgender youth. Over 100,000 transgender people under 18 now live in a state with a ban on their health care.

In January 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments such as puberty suppressants and hormone therapies to any trans person under 19. That order was soon challenged on behalf of families, medical providers, and advocates by the ACLU and the Lambda Legal and is blocked from enforcement by a preliminary injunction.

This case is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

In a letter sent to Paramount Global chair Shari Redstone, CPJ emphasized that the lawsuit lacks merit and that CBS journalists acted lawfully and ethically. CPJ warned that the settlement could set a harmful precedent, signaling that political figures can pressure news organizations into altering or censoring editorial decisions, and threatening freedom of the press in the U.S. and around the world.

Read the letter here:

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

CPJ wrote a letter to DeKalb County Chief Executive Officer Lorraine Cochran-Johnson requesting that charges against Guevara be dropped and has not immediately received a reply from the office.

“We are deeply concerned by the ongoing detention of Spanish-language journalist Mario Guevara by authorities in DeKalb County, Georgia. He must be released immediately and the charges against him dropped,” said CPJ U.S., Canada and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “Guevara was doing his job and reporting the news at the time of his arrest. It is alarming that the charges he is now facing could be a pretext to begin deportation proceedings against him.” 

Guevara, an Emmy-winning reporter who covers immigration on his “MGnews” Facebook page, and other social media platforms was livestreaming the protest in the Embry Hills neighborhood northwest of Atlanta when he was detained by police. At the time of his arrest, Guevara was wearing a press pass and clearly identified himself as a journalist to law enforcement, according to video footage of his arrest.

Originally from El Salvador, Guevara has work authorization in the United States and has been in the process of obtaining a green card through his son, who is a U.S. citizen. 

Guevara was charged with improperly entering a roadway; obstruction of law enforcement officers; and unlawful assembly, according to reports. During a court appearance yesterday, a judge granted Guevara bond. However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a “detainer” against the journalist, which often precedes the deportation process, his lawyer, Giovanni Díaz, told reporters. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The Department of Justice and Legal Services in Bougainville is aiming to craft a government policy to deal with violence related to sorcery accusations.

The Post-Courier reports that a forum, which wrapped up on Wednesday, aimed to dissect the roots of sorcery/witchcraft beliefs and the severe violence stemming from accusations.

An initial forum was held in Arawa last month.

• READ MORE: Other PNG sorcery reports

Central Bougainville’s Director of Justice and Legal Services, Dennis Kuiai, said the forums’ ultimate goal is crafting a government policy.

Further consultations are planned for South Bougainville next week and a regional forum in Arawa later this year.

“This policy will be deliberated and developed into law to address sorcery and [sorcery accusation-related violence] in Bougainville,” he said.

“We aim to provide an effective legal mechanism.”

Targeted 3 key areas
He said the future law’s structure was to target three key areas: the violence linked to accusations, sorcery practices themselves, and addressing the phenomenon of “glass man”.

A glassman or glassmeri has the power to accuse women and men of witchcraft and sorcery.

Papua New Guinea outlawed the practice in 2022.

The forum culminated in the compilation and signing of a resolution on its closing day, witnessed by officials.

Sorcery has long been an issue in PNG.

Those accused of sorcery are frequently beaten, tortured, and murdered, and anyone who manage to survive the attacks are banished from their communities.

Saved mother rejected
In April, a mother-of-four was was reportedly rejected by her own family after she was saved by a social justice advocacy group.

In August last year, an advocate told people in Aotearoa – where she was raising awareness – that Papua New Guinea desperately needed stronger laws to protect innocents and deliver justice for victims of sorcery related violence.

In October 2023, Papua New Guinea MPs were told that gender-based and sorcery violence was widespread and much higher than reported.

In November 2020, two men in the Bana district were hacked to death by members of a rival clan, who claimed the men used sorcery against them.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Government officials confirmed that Torres was detained May 13 but have since provided no information on the charges against him.

The letter calls on Venezuelan authorities to “guarantee that human rights defenders can carry out their work freely and safely, without fear of harassment, reprisals or imprisonment” and to allow Torres regular communication with family members and trusted lawyers.

Read the full letter in English here and Spanish here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Environmental Protection Agency has withdrawn a legal complaint filed last year against the GEO Group, a major donor to President Donald Trump that has more than $1 billion in contracts with the administration to run private prisons and ICE detention facilities.

The administrative complaint, which the EPA filed last June under the Biden administration, involved the GEO Group’s use of a disinfectant called Halt at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in California. The EPA regulates the product, which causes irreversible eye damage and skin burns, according to its label. By law, users are supposed to use goggles or a face shield, chemical resistant gloves and protective clothing.

But on more than 1,000 occasions in 2022 and 2023, the GEO group had its employees use the disinfectant without proper protections, the EPA complaint alleged. The agency alleged that GEO Group’s employees wore nitrile exam gloves that were labeled “extra soft” and “not intended for use as a general chemical barrier.” In a separate, pending lawsuit, people who were detained at the detention center alleged they were sickened by the company’s liberal use of a different disinfectant.

A hearing had yet to be scheduled before an administrative law judge. The maximum penalty for the company’s alleged misuse of Halt is more than $4 million. But a notice filed on Friday by Matthew Salazar, a manager in the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, stated that the EPA’s case against the GEO Group would be dropped. The notice did not provide an explanation.

“This is a complete surrender,” said Gary Jonesi, an attorney who worked at the EPA for almost 40 years. “If this is not due to political intervention on behalf of an early and large Trump donor who stands to gain from managing ICE detention facilities and private prisons, then surely it is at least partly due to the intimidation that career staff feel in an environment when federal employees are being fired and reassigned to undesirable tasks and locations.”

A spokesperson for the White House said that the GEO Group has “provided services to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for several decades” and has been a major federal contractor for many years. The spokesperson did not say whether the White House played a role in the decision to withdraw the complaint but referred ProPublica to the EPA.

The EPA said in an email that, “As a matter of longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on litigation.” The GEO Group didn’t respond to questions from ProPublica. In a filing in response to the EPA’s complaint, the GEO Group admitted that its employees used Halt but said that the disinfectant “was applied in a manner consistent with its label at all times and locations.” The company also wrote in its court filing that the gloves its employees used are chemically resistant and offered appropriate protection.

The GEO Group has had close ties to the Trump administration. Pam Bondi, Trump’s attorney general, was a lobbyist for the company in 2019. The attorney general “is in full compliance with all ethical guidance,” a spokesperson for the Department of Justice said in an email.

The firm was the first corporation whose political action committee “maxed out” on contributions to Trump’s presidential campaign. A subsidiary company, GEO Acquisition II, also gave $1 million to the pro-Trump PAC Make America Great Again. The GEO Group, its PAC and individuals affiliated with the company collectively contributed $3.7 million to candidates and political committees in the 2024 election cycle, compared with $2.7 million in 2020, according to OpenSecrets, an independent group that tracks money in politics. They donated overwhelmingly to Republicans: In every election cycle since 2016, at least 87% of their donations to federal candidates went to Republicans.

Data from the Federal Election Commission shows that George C. Zoley, the founder of the GEO Group, donated $50,000 in 2023 to a joint fundraising committee to support Republican efforts to maintain a majority in the House of Representatives. Zoley gave the maximum amount allowed for an individual per election at the time, $3,300, to Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson’s primary and general election campaigns in 2024.

The GEO group regularly and liberally sprayed disinfectants in the ICE facility, according to both the EPA complaint and a separate civil suit filed on behalf of Adelanto detainees. The EPA complaint did not state whether employees were harmed by the pesticide; it accused the company of inappropriately handling the pesticide.

The separate lawsuit, filed by the Social Justice Legal Foundation, alleges that Adelanto detainees were sickened by the use of a different disinfectant product, HDQ Neutral, made by the same company. “Various Plaintiffs had nosebleeds or found blood in their mouth and saliva. Others had debilitating headaches or felt dizzy and lightheaded,” the lawsuit stated. “GEO staff sprayed when people were eating, and the chemical mist would fall on their food. GEO staff sprayed at night, on or around the bunk beds and cells where people slept. And on at least one occasion, GEO staff sprayed individuals as a disciplinary measure.”

That lawsuit is still pending. The allegations echo a warning letter the EPA previously sent the company accusing the GEO Group of improperly using HDQ Neutral. That letter cited complaints from detainees at Adelanto who suffered “difficulty breathing,” “lung pain” and skin rashes from the disinfectant. The pesticide was sprayed onto bedding and inside microwaves, the EPA said. The GEO Group has told reporters that it rejects allegations that it’s using harmful chemicals, and that it follows the manufacturer’s instructions. In a court filing, the company said any problems alleged by the EPA “were the result of the declared national emergency concerning COVID-19.” A judge ordered ICE to stop using HDQ Neutral in 2020. The GEO Group began using Halt “on or about” March 2022, according to the EPA complaint.

Pratheek Rebala contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Sharon Lerner and Lisa Song.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Environmental Protection Agency has withdrawn a legal complaint filed last year against the GEO Group, a major donor to President Donald Trump that has more than $1 billion in contracts with the administration to run private prisons and ICE detention facilities.

The administrative complaint, which the EPA filed last June under the Biden administration, involved the GEO Group’s use of a disinfectant called Halt at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in California. The EPA regulates the product, which causes irreversible eye damage and skin burns, according to its label. By law, users are supposed to use goggles or a face shield, chemical resistant gloves and protective clothing.

But on more than 1,000 occasions in 2022 and 2023, the GEO group had its employees use the disinfectant without proper protections, the EPA complaint alleged. The agency alleged that GEO Group’s employees wore nitrile exam gloves that were labeled “extra soft” and “not intended for use as a general chemical barrier.” In a separate, pending lawsuit, people who were detained at the detention center alleged they were sickened by the company’s liberal use of a different disinfectant.

A hearing had yet to be scheduled before an administrative law judge. The maximum penalty for the company’s alleged misuse of Halt is more than $4 million. But a notice filed on Friday by Matthew Salazar, a manager in the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, stated that the EPA’s case against the GEO Group would be dropped. The notice did not provide an explanation.

“This is a complete surrender,” said Gary Jonesi, an attorney who worked at the EPA for almost 40 years. “If this is not due to political intervention on behalf of an early and large Trump donor who stands to gain from managing ICE detention facilities and private prisons, then surely it is at least partly due to the intimidation that career staff feel in an environment when federal employees are being fired and reassigned to undesirable tasks and locations.”

A spokesperson for the White House said that the GEO Group has “provided services to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for several decades” and has been a major federal contractor for many years. The spokesperson did not say whether the White House played a role in the decision to withdraw the complaint but referred ProPublica to the EPA.

The EPA said in an email that, “As a matter of longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on litigation.” The GEO Group didn’t respond to questions from ProPublica. In a filing in response to the EPA’s complaint, the GEO Group admitted that its employees used Halt but said that the disinfectant “was applied in a manner consistent with its label at all times and locations.” The company also wrote in its court filing that the gloves its employees used are chemically resistant and offered appropriate protection.

The GEO Group has had close ties to the Trump administration. Pam Bondi, Trump’s attorney general, was a lobbyist for the company in 2019. The attorney general “is in full compliance with all ethical guidance,” a spokesperson for the Department of Justice said in an email.

The firm was the first corporation whose political action committee “maxed out” on contributions to Trump’s presidential campaign. A subsidiary company, GEO Acquisition II, also gave $1 million to the pro-Trump PAC Make America Great Again. The GEO Group, its PAC and individuals affiliated with the company collectively contributed $3.7 million to candidates and political committees in the 2024 election cycle, compared with $2.7 million in 2020, according to OpenSecrets, an independent group that tracks money in politics. They donated overwhelmingly to Republicans: In every election cycle since 2016, at least 87% of their donations to federal candidates went to Republicans.

Data from the Federal Election Commission shows that George C. Zoley, the founder of the GEO Group, donated $50,000 in 2023 to a joint fundraising committee to support Republican efforts to maintain a majority in the House of Representatives. Zoley gave the maximum amount allowed for an individual per election at the time, $3,300, to Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson’s primary and general election campaigns in 2024.

The GEO group regularly and liberally sprayed disinfectants in the ICE facility, according to both the EPA complaint and a separate civil suit filed on behalf of Adelanto detainees. The EPA complaint did not state whether employees were harmed by the pesticide; it accused the company of inappropriately handling the pesticide.

The separate lawsuit, filed by the Social Justice Legal Foundation, alleges that Adelanto detainees were sickened by the use of a different disinfectant product, HDQ Neutral, made by the same company. “Various Plaintiffs had nosebleeds or found blood in their mouth and saliva. Others had debilitating headaches or felt dizzy and lightheaded,” the lawsuit stated. “GEO staff sprayed when people were eating, and the chemical mist would fall on their food. GEO staff sprayed at night, on or around the bunk beds and cells where people slept. And on at least one occasion, GEO staff sprayed individuals as a disciplinary measure.”

That lawsuit is still pending. The allegations echo a warning letter the EPA previously sent the company accusing the GEO Group of improperly using HDQ Neutral. That letter cited complaints from detainees at Adelanto who suffered “difficulty breathing,” “lung pain” and skin rashes from the disinfectant. The pesticide was sprayed onto bedding and inside microwaves, the EPA said. The GEO Group has told reporters that it rejects allegations that it’s using harmful chemicals, and that it follows the manufacturer’s instructions. In a court filing, the company said any problems alleged by the EPA “were the result of the declared national emergency concerning COVID-19.” A judge ordered ICE to stop using HDQ Neutral in 2020. The GEO Group began using Halt “on or about” March 2022, according to the EPA complaint.

Pratheek Rebala contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Sharon Lerner and Lisa Song.

Described as a local farmer and woodworker in reports, Loeuy was also ordered to pay a 55 million riel (US$13,500) fine to Chheng’s family.

“The conviction and sentencing of Chhoeung Chheng’s must herald an end to the chronic violence and intimidation faced by journalists in Cambodia,” said Shawn Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia representative. “Authorities should build on this rule-of-law milestone by protecting reporters who cover the environment.” 

Loeuy shot Chheng, a reporter for the local Kampuchea Aphivath news site, on December 4, 2024, while he was investigating reports of illegal logging in Siem Riep’s Boeung Per Wildlife Sanctuary. Chheng died of his injuries shortly after the attack.

CPJ has documented other cases in Cambodia in which environmental reporters have been killed and denied entry in connection with their work, as well as the arrest and temporary detention of reporter Ouk Mao last month.

Cambodia’s Ministry of Information did not respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The two men, part of a Maltese criminal gang, are due to be sentenced in the coming weeks.

The joint statement said that the June 5 verdict marks a vital step toward full justice — a crucial development in the fight against impunity that will hopefully strengthen the case against the alleged mastermind, businessman Yorgen Fenech, who is awaiting trial. To date, five individuals have been found guilty of involvement in Caruana Galizia’s murder.

Read the full statement here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Los Angeles Times reporter James Queally was subpoenaed on May 9, 2025, by two Knock LA journalists for testimony at the trial of their civil case against the city of Los Angeles, California, and multiple police officers.

Queally and the two reporters were among the nearly 20 journalists detained while documenting protests near LA’s Echo Park Lake on March 25, 2021, after police surrounded and arrested everyone using a tactic called “kettling.”

Queally was released after approximately 30 minutes, with help from attorneys and a managing editor for the Times. Other journalists, including the two reporters for nonprofit community journalism outlet Knock LA, were charged with failure to disperse. The charges were quickly dropped.

The Knock LA reporters, Jonathan Peltz and Kate Gallagher, then filed a lawsuit against the city, as well as then-Los Angeles Police Department Chief Michel Moore and 10 police officers. The reporters alleged that their arrests violated both their constitutional rights and California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, which protects journalists.

“This is a civil rights action challenging the Los Angeles Police Department’s longstanding policy, custom and practice of obstructing, targeting, and retaliating against members of the press for exercising their First Amendment rights to gather news regarding police officer activity in public places,” the lawsuit states.

Three weeks before the case was set to go to trial on May 27, attorneys for Peltz and Gallagher subpoenaed Queally, ordering him to appear as a witness and to testify about “the protest, his coverage of it, and being detained, but ultimately released when the officers identified him as a journalist.”

In a motion to quash the subpoena filed May 23, attorneys representing Queally argued that, in a rush to vindicate their own interests, the Knock LA journalists had infringed on the rights of a fellow reporter.

“The free flow of information to the public is jeopardized when litigants use the coercive power of the Court to force journalists to testify in support of parties’ private aims, which undermines reporters’ credibility and hampers their ability to do their job,” the motion said.

Dan Laidman, one of the attorneys representing Queally, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that the decision to challenge the subpoena doesn’t reflect any position on the merits of the case.

“James Queally and the Los Angeles Times have demonstrated histories of supporting press freedom and fellow journalists,” Laidman wrote, but added, “Forcing reporters to testify in court about matters that they cover compromises their ability to gather the news, and under the First Amendment it’s only allowed as a last resort in exceptional circumstances.”

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for June 26, and the trial date has been moved to Aug. 5.

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

Within days of publication last month, sources close to El Salvador’s attorney general’s office warned that arrest warrants were imminent for seven of the outlet’s journalists. The purported charges – “advocacy of crime” and “unlawful association” – are typically used against alleged gang members. Ten El Faro reporters have now left the country as a precaution.

Just days after the interviews were published, the government escalated the crackdown against both journalists and human rights organizations whose work includes supporting journalists. Ruth López, a prominent lawyer with the human rights group Cristosal, was abruptly arrested and charged with embezzlement. Two other activists remain in custody facing public disorder charges. International organizations have raised alarms over what they describe as the systematic use of the justice system to silence critics.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented years of harassment against the El Faro newsroom, from Pegasus spyware surveillance and baseless money laundering accusations to smear campaigns led by government officials. Today, in the aftermath of the publication of the gang interviews, the pressure has reached unprecedented levels.

In a conversation with CPJ, El Faro Editor-in-Chief Óscar Martínez – recipient of CPJ’s 2016 International Press Freedom Award – reflected on toll of the persecution.

This interview was conducted in Spanish and has been edited for length and clarity.

Can you talk about how you left the country and how you’re doing now?

We published the interview videos on May 1. We knew the material would have an impact, so four of us left the country before publication to ensure it could be shared freely and then return. Each of us went to different places, one to Mexico to engage with the media, I went to the U.S. for meetings and coverage, which turned into a sort of advocacy to protect the newsroom.

After we left, repression escalated: transport business leaders were arrested, one died in prison five days later. Then came arrests of community leaders protesting outside the president’s residence, and the detention of (human rights lawyer) Ruth López. Meanwhile, we kept receiving alerts about surveillance on our staff and pending arrest warrants. So we took three more colleagues out and then another four. Now there are 10 of us outside the country, not formally exiled, but staying out for safety. We’re planning our return.

Can you explain the charges brought against you or your newsroom?

One day after we published the interviews, the head of the State Intelligence Agency accused us on social media of five crimes, including human trafficking and sexual violence. He said, “You don’t throw rocks at someone who has bombs,” like a threat. Not long after, we confirmed through two separate, reliable sources that seven arrest warrants had been drafted against us. They (the sources) didn’t know each other but provided the same information: That we are being accused of “advocacy of crime” and unlawful association. Crimes that were used against criminal groups, so that’s when we decided to get everyone involved in the video out of the country.

How has El Salvador’s state of emergency, which the government says it imposed to combat gang violence, make it especially dangerous for journalists accused of gang ties?

The state of emergency began in March 2022 and brought a series of legal changes. For the first 15 days, authorities don’t need to present you before a judge. You can be arrested based solely on a police or military officer’s intuition. They also eliminated the two-year limit on pretrial detention; now you can remain in prison for five, ten, or even fifteen years without a conviction. There’s total secrecy over proceedings and what they call “mass trials,” where hundreds are charged without individualized evidence.

In practice, it’s even worse: warrantless raids, anonymous judges, ignored release orders, and no prison visits. It’s a police state where the executive decides who’s arrested and for how long. And it all happens without checks or balances, because in El Salvador today, there’s only one power: the president.

What do you think the government aims to achieve by accusing you of being gang members or sympathizers?

It’s a tactic used in other dictatorships, like Cuba or Nicaragua, to turn critics into “non-citizens.” Bukele knows how to tap into fear. He’s pushed the narrative that we defend gangs, even though we’ve covered gang violence long before he entered politics, back when he was running a nightclub.

What we’re doing is questioning criminals who allied with the government — that’s journalism. His persecution of us and the arrest of Ruth López is a message to all he considers visible opposition: the press, civil society, community leaders, environmentalists, and political parties. His message is clear: he’s going to crush us. We’ve received the message. Some of us may get arrested, others may go into exile. That’s Bukele’s plan: destroy us by turning the public against us.

Is there any legal or institutional path you can take to challenge the accusations or seek protection?

No. None.

How would you compare the press environment now to what existed before Bukele took office? What’s changed politically and legally?

Before, there was a public information access law — it worked poorly, but it worked. There were press conferences. The labor ministry wasn’t used to attack the media. There was no state of emergency. If you were charged with a crime, you had a right to a public, open trial and the ability to appeal. There were still independent judges, and the Constitutional Chamber had some diversity. The attorney general’s office had a degree of autonomy.

All of that is gone now. El Salvador was never an easy country for journalism, but it’s never been this bad.

How has all this affected your ability to report and build sources?

Drastically. We’ve lost many sources, especially after it was revealed that Pegasus spyware had infiltrated our phones for 17 months. Nobody wants to talk to journalists who are being surveilled. The government uses polygraphs to question officials about whether they’ve spoken to El Faro. We know that ministries and the presidency specifically ask about this. Some sources who spoke to us are now in prison, one died there, with signs of torture.

Doing journalism is also much more expensive. To meet a source, we might need to rent an Airbnb with underground parking or travel abroad. What once cost a reporter’s [time] now can cost $10,000. Publishing can lead to arrest warrants. We’ve lost talented journalists who left out of legitimate fear and that’s a huge loss for journalism.

How are you coping with all of this, personally and professionally, under so much pressure and risk?

We’re trying to stay calm, to avoid losing perspective or compromising our journalistic rigor. It’s hard, but we’re doing it by relying on our editorial board and years of experience. We’ve had to adapt quickly, shift resources, and do everything we can to make the budget work.

You plan your finances for a year, and then suddenly you have to take 10 journalists out of the country. Then five audits arrive, trying to fine you thousands of dollars for things you’ve already proven you didn’t do. You have to regularly scan all phones for Pegasus. You also need an emergency fund in case you need to evacuate journalists and their families.

We’re focused on staying steady, leaning on our international allies, showing them what’s happening, and asking for one specific thing: time. We know what’s coming: exile or prison. We’re not asking anyone to stop the inevitable, just to help us delay it. As long as we have time, we’ll keep reporting.

How do you think what’s happening to you, to El Faro, and to independent media in El Salvador can serve as a warning or lesson for journalists in other countries, even the United States?

It’s deeply instructive; it cuts to the core of what journalism is. People can do what they want with the information we report, but a lot simply wouldn’t be known if we didn’t exist.

People wouldn’t know that Bukele negotiated with gangs, or that victims of gangs are now imprisoned, or that the prisons chief sold off 41,000 sacks of pandemic food aid for profit. They wouldn’t know that Bukele is expanding his private residence with public funds. We report, what people do with it is their choice. We answer to our readers and our principles, but above all, we report for them.

I also think of journalists like Alma Guillermoprieto and Susan Meiselas. If they hadn’t documented the El Mozote massacre in 1981, standing up to a coordinated campaign that denied it ever happened, there wouldn’t be a trial today. It’s terrible that those trials are only now happening, for the old and the dead, but it’s something. If they hadn’t done it, the world would be worse. And if we don’t do our part now, it will be worse again.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Dánae Vílchez.

Local press freedom groups said those abducted between May 21 and 23 included:

• Abduljabbar Zayad, freelance photographer
• Hassan Ziyad, journalist with London-based newspaper Al-Araby Al-Jadeed
• Abdulaziz Al-Noum, Director of the Soorah Media Production Center,
• Walid Ali Ghalib, deputy head of the Yemeni Journalists Syndicate

On May 24, the Specialized Criminal Court in the capital Sanaa sentenced well-known Yemeni journalist Mohamed Al-Miyahi to 1½ years in prison for criticizing Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi online. Al-Miyahi was also ordered to sign a pledge not to resume his journalistic work and to pay a guarantee of 5 million riyals (US$20,500), which he would forfeit if he were to resume publication of material critical of the state.

“The kidnapping of at least four Yemeni journalists and media workers and the sentence issued against Mohamed Al-Miyahi exemplify the Houthis’ escalating assault on press freedom,” said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. “We call on Houthi authorities to immediately release all detained journalists and stop weaponizing the law and courts to legitimize their repression of independent voices.”

The Iranian-backed rebels, who control Sanaa and govern more than 70% of Yemen’s population, have been fighting a Saudi-backed coalition since 2015. The group is designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Al-Miyahi criticized the Houthis in his last article prior to his September abduction and enforced disappearance for over a month. In January, he appeared in court, accused of “publishing articles against the state.” 

Al-Miyahi’s prosecution violates Article 13 of Yemen’s press law, which protects journalists from punishment for publishing their opinions, unless these are unlawful.

CPJ has criticized the establishment of parallel justice systems by non-state groups, like the Houthis, as they are widely seen as lacking impartiality.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Local press freedom groups said those abducted between May 21 and 23 included:

• Abduljabbar Zayad, freelance photographer
• Hassan Ziyad, journalist with London-based newspaper Al-Araby Al-Jadeed
• Abdulaziz Al-Noum, Director of the Soorah Media Production Center,
• Walid Ali Ghalib, deputy head of the Yemeni Journalists Syndicate

On May 24, the Specialized Criminal Court in the capital Sanaa sentenced well-known Yemeni journalist Mohamed Al-Miyahi to 1½ years in prison for criticizing Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi online. Al-Miyahi was also ordered to sign a pledge not to resume his journalistic work and to pay a guarantee of 5 million riyals (US$20,500), which he would forfeit if he were to resume publication of material critical of the state.

“The kidnapping of at least four Yemeni journalists and media workers and the sentence issued against Mohamed Al-Miyahi exemplify the Houthis’ escalating assault on press freedom,” said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. “We call on Houthi authorities to immediately release all detained journalists and stop weaponizing the law and courts to legitimize their repression of independent voices.”

The Iranian-backed rebels, who control Sanaa and govern more than 70% of Yemen’s population, have been fighting a Saudi-backed coalition since 2015. The group is designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Al-Miyahi criticized the Houthis in his last article prior to his September abduction and enforced disappearance for over a month. In January, he appeared in court, accused of “publishing articles against the state.” 

Al-Miyahi’s prosecution violates Article 13 of Yemen’s press law, which protects journalists from punishment for publishing their opinions, unless these are unlawful.

CPJ has criticized the establishment of parallel justice systems by non-state groups, like the Houthis, as they are widely seen as lacking impartiality.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“Following Kloop’s forced shutdown last year, the arrest of eight current and former Kloop staffers and incitement charges against journalists Aleksandr Aleksandrov and Joomart Duulatov is a grave escalation of Kyrgyz authorities’ vendetta against Kloop for its critical coverage of government corruption,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director. “All press members swept up in these targeted raids must be released without delay.”

Between Wednesday and Friday, officers with Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security (SCNS) raided Kloop’s offices and the homes of journalists and staffers in the capital of Bishkek and the southern city of Osh, seizing electronic devices, before taking them to SCNS offices for questioning, according to multiple reports.

Kloop founder Rinat Tuhvatshin called the arrests “abductions,” stating that the SCNS conducted searches and questioned the journalists without lawyers present and did not allow them to make any phone calls. 

In a May 30 statement, the SCNS accused Kloop of continuing to work despite the liquidation of its legal entity and said its “illegal work” was “aimed at provoking public discontent … for the subsequent organization of mass unrest.”

With Aleksandrov and Duulatov, an unnamed Kloop accountant detained Friday also remained in SCNS custody. If found guilty on the incitement charges, Aleksandrov and Duulatov could face up to eight years in prison.

A local partner in the global investigative network Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), Kloop regularly reports on alleged corruption and abuses by government officials. The outlet’s website has been blocked in Kyrgyzstan since 2023.

The charges against Aleksandrov and Duulatov echo those brought last year against 11 current and former staffers of investigative outlet Temirov Live. 

CPJ’s email to SCNS for comment did not immediately receive a reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The Supreme State Security Prosecution released Qandeel the same day on bail of 50,000 Egyptian pounds (about US$1,004).

“Accusing Qandeel after questioning her journalistic integrity is another example of Egypt’s legal harassment and use of vague charges to silence independent voices,” said CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah. “We urge Egyptian authorities to drop all charges against her and stop targeting independent journalism.”

Qandeel, a well-known former BBC Arabic presenter, said she has faced increased verbal attacks from pro-regime Egyptian media presenters after publishing articles last month criticizing the Egyptian army’s arms purchases amid the country’s economic hardships.

If convicted, Qandeel could face up to five years in prison, a fine up to half a million Egyptian pounds, or both, under Article 80(d) of the Penal Code—a provision that raises penalties for spreading “false news” abroad.

Qandeel told Cairo-based news outlet Al-Manassa that the charges followed 31 citizen complaints filed over two weeks in May—all related to investigative reports she published last year.

Egypt ranked as the sixth-worst country globally for press freedom last year, with 17 journalists behind bars.

CPJ’s request for comment from the Egyptian Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding Qandeel’s case did not receive an immediate response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

On May 15, the Tamaulipas Electoral Institute (IETAM) ordered de Mauleón – one of Mexico’s most well-known investigative journalists – to take down his May 1 column, which mentioned corruption allegations against a relative of a candidate, Tania Contreras, in the northern state and to refrain from publishing articles linking her to criminal individuals or acts. The woman sued de Mauleón and his newspaper El Universal on May 15 for slander and political violence based on gender. De Mauleón was found guilty, but the dates of the verdict and his sentencing were not made public.

Such vexatious lawsuits are an increasingly popular tool for Mexican politicians to censor critical journalism, and CPJ has documented their use since 2016, when a court in Mexico City eliminated the maximum compensation plaintiffs could sue for in moral damages suits. Over the past five years, at least 158 journalists faced libel suits, according to the office in Mexico of Article 19, a London-based advocacy group and CPJ partner organization.

It’s a global trend. In Europe and the United States, Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation, commonly known as SLAPPs, are widely used as retaliatory measures to intimidate journalists and suppress public interest reporting.

Political violence based on gender

The crime of political violence based on gender, introduced in 2020, was designed to protect female candidates in a country where gender violence is among the highest in the world, including against women running for or holding public office, numerous studies found.

Reporter Arturo Ángel Arrellano Camarillo of Al Calor Político news site has been found guilty of the same crime in the eastern state of Veracruz. In January of this year he was ordered to pay an unspecified fine and reparations to Mara Chama, a woman he named in a 2021 article about politicians’ relatives running for office, according to the court ruling, reviewed by CPJ.

Arellano’s name will also be added to a register of Persons Sanctioned for Political Violence against Women held by the National Electoral Institute, which organizes Mexico’s federal elections.

“The rulings against journalists Héctor de Mauleón and Arturo Arellano are clear examples of judicial harassment, with politicians abusing the law to silence critical reporting – an increasingly common phenomenon in Mexico,” said CPJ Mexico Representative Jan-Albert Hootsen. “We call on Mexican politicians to stop bringing meritless cases to court to prevent the publication of news that is in the public interest.”

In both cases, lower courts rejected the charges, but their rulings were overturned.

The charges against the two journalists appear to be baseless, as there was no evidence of political violence or of the journalists singling out the women because of their gender, human rights lawyer Jorge Ruiz del Ángel told CPJ. “There appears to be little merit in these cases”, he said. “In either one the damage the articles would have caused is not clear, nor the specific component of gender.”

At risk

De Mauleón did not withdraw the article, despite the risk of arrest. He told CPJ that retracting it would create a dangerous precedent of self-censorship for journalists in Mexico.

He is used to being harassed over his work. For the last decade, De Mauleón been threatened multiple times for his reporting on organized crime, extortion, drug trafficking, and corrupt networks involving politicians and celebrities.

But this case concerned him because the court order was handed to him at his Mexico City home.

“I was told that my personal information was given to the IETAM, which I believe places me at risk,” De Mauleón told CPJ.

Mexico is the deadliest country in the Americas for journalists, according to CPJ research. Since 2020, 40 journalists and media workers were killed in work-related, or possibly work-related incidents, according to CPJ research. Mexico ranked eighth on CPJ’s 2024 Global Impunity Index.

CPJ made several attempts to reach Tania Contreras via calls to her campaign’s office in Tamaulipas and to Mara Chama via the Teocelo municipal government in Veracruz for comment, but none of the calls were answered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Journalists have been targeted, detained and tortured by the Israeli military in Gaza — and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has now taken a new approach towards bringing justice these crimes.

The Paris-based global media freedom NGO has submitted multiple formal requests to the International Criminal Court (ICC) asking that Palestinian journalists who are victims of Israeli war crimes in Gaza be allowed to participate as such in international judicial proceedings.

If granted this status, these journalists would be able to present the ICC with the direct and personal harm they have suffered at the hands of Israeli forces, reports RSF.

• READ MORE: Other Gaza journalists reports

RSF has filed four complaints with the ICC concerning war crimes committed against journalists in Gaza and recently joined director Sepideh Farsi at the Cannes Film Festival to pay tribute to Fatma Hassoun, a photojournalist killed by the Israeli army after it was revealed she was featured in the documentary film Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk.

After filing the four complaints with the ICC concerning war crimes committed against journalists in Gaza since October 2023, RSF is resolutely continuing its efforts to bring the issue before international justice.

The NGO has submitted several victim participation forms to the ICC so that Gazan journalists can participate in the legal process as recognised victims, not just as witnesses.

Being officially recognised as victims is a first step toward justice, truth, and reparations — and it is an essential step toward protecting press freedom and journalistic integrity in conflict zones.

Nearly 200 journalists killed
Since October 2023, Israeli armed forces have killed nearly 200 journalists in Gaza — the Gaza Media Office says more than 215 journalists have been killed — at least 44 of whom were targeted because of their work, according to RSF data.

Not only are foreign journalists barred from entering the blockaded Palestinian territory, but local reporters have watched their homes and newsrooms be destroyed by Israeli airstrikes and have been constantly displaced amid a devastating humanitarian crisis.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Public consultations for the proposed Shield, which European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced in 2024, closed on May 26.

The Commission has stated that defense of the press will be an “important part” of the initiative, which seeks to address foreign interference online, and counter disinformation and information manipulation, as well as other threats to democratic processes. 

During its 2019 to 2024 term, the European Commission stepped up its defense of media freedom, with actions including: 

• The 2024 European Media Freedom Act to stop media capture by vested interests;
• A 2022 Directive and Recommendation to limit the use of vexatious lawsuits filed to censor critical reporting, known as SLAPPS, or Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation;
• The 2021 Recommendation on journalists’ safety, which guides member states on how to protect journalists.

“Brussels has created the tools for strengthening media freedom in Europe, but journalists need to see that they work,” said CPJ Deputy Advocacy Director, EU, Tom Gibson. “The European Democracy Shield should provide a clear roadmap to push existing reforms forward. EU member states should respond with both financial commitments to ensure its success and renewed political will to save journalism in Europe.”

The impact of recent initiatives has yet to be seen. As CPJ noted in its 2023 report, “Fragile Progress: The struggle for press freedom in the European Union”, improved and sustained action from Brussels is needed to ensure member states deliver on the reforms.

The question of Europe’s political will coincides with a dire financial outlook for the media worldwide, including a shift to digital platforms and declining advertising revenues. The Trump administration’s withdrawal of U.S. financial support has plunged many independent media outlets in Europe into crisis.

Negotiations over the EU’s 2028 to 2034 budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework, are likely to be tense, in part because of diverging outlooks from member states and economic pressures. 

Read CPJ’s full recommendations to the European Commission on the European Democracy Shield here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

When top Trump adviser Stephen Miller threatened on May 9 that the administration is “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus in response to an “invasion” from undocumented immigrants, he was operating on a fringe legal theory that a right-wing faction has been working to legitimize for more than a decade.

“The Constitution is clear — and that of course is the supreme law of the land — that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller said earlier this month in response to a question about Trump’s threat to suspend habeas corpus, the legal right of a prisoner to challenge their detention. Days after Miller’s remarks, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem issued the same warning when a member of a House panel asked her if the number of illegal border crossings meets the threshold for suspending the right. “I’m not a constitutional lawyer,” Noem said. “But I believe it does.”

Hard-liners have referred to immigrants as “invaders” as long as the U.S. has had immigration. By 2022, invasion rhetoric, which had previously been relegated to white nationalist circles, had become such a staple of Republican campaign ads that most of the public agreed an invasion of the U.S. via the southern border was underway.

Now, however, the claim that the U.S. is under invasion has become the legal linchpin of President Donald Trump’s sweeping anti-immigrant campaign.

The claim is Trump’s central justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport roughly 140 Venezuelans to CECOT, the Salvadoran megaprison, without due process. (The administration cited different legal authority for the remaining deportees.) The Trump administration contends they are members of a gang, Tren de Aragua, that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is directing to infiltrate and operate in the United States. Lawyers and families of many of the deportees have presented evidence the prisoners are not even members of Tren de Aragua.

The contention is also the throughline of Trump’s day one executive order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” That document calls for the expansion of immigration removal proceedings without court hearings and for legal attacks against sanctuary jurisdictions, places that refuse to commit local resources to immigration enforcement.

So far, no court has bought the idea that the U.S. is truly under invasion, as defined by the Constitution or the Alien Enemies Act, on the handful of occasions the government has used the argument to justify supercharged immigration enforcement. Four federal judges, including one Trump appointee, have said the situation Trump describes fails to meet the definition of an invasion. Tren de Aragua “may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking, but that is a criminal matter, not an invasion or predatory incursion,” U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote. Indeed, Trump’s own intelligence agencies found that Maduro is not directing the gang. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the question but froze any more deportations without due process on May 16.

The Trump legal push has been in the works for years. After Trump left the White House, two of his loyalists, former Homeland Security official Ken Cuccinelli and his now-two-time budget chief Russell Vought, quietly built a consensus for the invasion legal theory among state Republican officials and ultimately helped persuade Texas to give it a test run in court.

Most legal scholars reject the idea that the wave of undocumented immigration fits the original definition of what an invasion is, but they worry nonetheless. When U.S. District Judge Stephanie L. Haines, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary ruling earlier this month that allowed Trump to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, she did not label immigrants “invaders.” Instead, she proposed that Tren de Aragua was “the modern equivalent of a pirate or a robber.”

If the Supreme Court ultimately takes up the invasion question, a ruling like Haines’ offers a blueprint for sidestepping the issue while giving Trump what he wants, or for embracing the invasion theory wholesale, legal scholars said.

“All this really comes down to the issue of whether the United States Supreme Court is going to allow a president to behave essentially as an autocratic dictator if he’s prepared to make entirely fictitious factual declarations that trigger monarchical power,” said Frank Bowman, a legal historian and professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law.

Under the Constitution, if the United States is invaded, Congress has the power to call up the militia and can allow the suspension of habeas corpus, the constitutional right that is the core of due process. The states, which are normally forbidden from unilaterally engaging in war, can do so according to the Constitution if they are “actually invaded.”

The Alien Enemies Act, an 18th century wartime law enacted during a naval conflict with France, also rests on the definition of an invasion. It allows the president to expel “aliens” during “any invasion or predatory incursion … by any foreign nation or government.” It has only ever been invoked three times, during the War of 1812 and World Wars I and II.

Habeas corpus has likewise been suspended only a handful of times in the Constitution’s nearly 240-year history, including during Reconstruction, to put down violent rebellions in the South by the Ku Klux Klan; in 1905, to suppress the Moro uprising against U.S. control of the Philippines; and in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor in order to place Japanese Americans under martial law. In each of these cases, the executive branch acted after receiving permission from Congress.

An exception was in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus at the outbreak of the Civil War. This provoked a direct confrontation with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who ruled that only Congress was empowered to take such an extraordinary step. Congress later papered over the conflict by voting to give Lincoln the authority for the war’s duration.

Today, nearly every historian and constitutional scholar is in agreement that, when it comes to suspending habeas, Congress has the power to decide if the conditions are met.

“The Constitution does not vest this power in the President,” future Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in 2014. “Scholars and courts have overwhelmingly endorsed the position that, Lincoln’s unilateral suspensions of the writ notwithstanding, the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to decide when the predicates specified by the Suspension Clause are satisfied.” Even then, the Constitution only allows Congress to act in extreme circumstances — “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University who has closely followed these arguments, argues there is virtually no evidence that the drafters of the Constitution thought of an “invasion” as anything other than the kind of organized incursion that would traditionally spark a war.

“The original meaning of ‘invasion’ in the Constitution is actually what sort of the average normal person would think it means,” Somin said. “As James Madison put it, invasion is an operation of war. What Vladimir Putin did to Ukraine, that’s an invasion. What Hamas did to Israel, that’s an invasion. On the other hand, illegal migration, or drug smuggling, or ordinary crime — that’s not an invasion.”

In 1994, Florida Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles Jr. filed the first modern-day lawsuit arguing otherwise. The Haitian and Cuban refugee crises had spawned a new wave of anti-immigration sentiment, and hard-liners accused the federal government of owing states billions for handling immigrants’ supposed crimes and welfare claims. Chiles, who died in 1998, took the concept one step further. He filed a $1.5 billion suit claiming the U.S. had violated the section of the Constitution stating the federal government “shall protect each [state] against Invasion.”

Federal courts slapped down his lawsuit — and a spate of copycat suits from Arizona, California, New York and New Jersey — and the legal case for calling immigration an invasion died out.

In the late 2000s, a group of far-right voices began to revive this approach. Ken Cuccinelli was among the first and most strident. He was an early member of State Legislators for Legal Immigration, part of a powerful network of anti-immigration groups that pioneered efforts like ending birthright citizenship. The organization contended that immigrants were “foreign invaders” as described in the Constitution.

Cuccinelli evangelized for the theory as he rose from a state legislator to an official in Trump’s first Department of Homeland Security.

“Under war powers, there’s no due process,” Cuccinelli told Breitbart radio shortly before his appointment in the first Trump administration. “They can literally just line their National Guard up with, presumably with riot gear like they would if they had a civil disturbance, and turn people back at the border. … You just point them back across the river and let them swim for it.”

Cuccinelli got traction after Trump’s reelection loss. He joined a think tank Vought had founded as its immigration point man. During his time in the first Trump administration, Vought became frustrated that the president’s goals were frequently thwarted. He founded the Center for Renewing America, dedicated to a sweeping vision of remaking the government and society — what ultimately became Project 2025.

In remarks to a private audience at his think tank in 2023, Vought, who is now Trump’s budget chief and the intellectual force behind Trump’s unprecedented executive power grab, said he specifically championed the term “invasion” because it “unlocked” extraordinary presidential powers.

“One of the reasons why we were very, so insistent about coming up with the whole notion of the border being an ‘invasion’ because there were Constitutional authorities that were a part of being able to call it an invasion,” Vought said. Documented and ProPublica obtained videos of Vought’s speech last year. Vought and Cuccinelli did not respond to requests for comment.

In 2021 and 2022, Cucinelli, with Vought’s help, mounted press conferences and privately urged Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona and Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas to proclaim that their states were being invaded.

After Arizona’s then-attorney general, Mark Brnovich, released a legal opinion in February 2022 proclaiming violent cartels had “actually invaded” and opened the door for Ducey to deploy the state’s National Guard, Vought bragged to his audience that he and Cuccinelli had personally provided draft language for the opinion. In a previous email to ProPublica, Brnovich acknowledged speaking to Cuccinelli but said his opinion was “drafted and written by hard working attorneys (including myself) in our office.”

Ducey never acted on the invasion theory. But Abbott was more receptive. He invoked the state’s war powers, citing the “actually invaded” clause, in a 2022 open letter to President Joe Biden. “Two years of inaction on your part now leave Texas with no choice,” he wrote. Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Abbott, said the governor “declared an invasion due to the Biden Administration’s repeated failures in upholding its constitutional duty to secure the border and defend states.”

Abbott ordered the banks of the Rio Grande river to be strung with razor wire and a shallow section to be obstructed by a 1,000-foot string of man-sized buoys and blades and signed a law, S.B. 4, giving state authorities the power to deport undocumented immigrants.

When the Justice Department sued, Abbott’s administration argued in legal briefs that its actions were justified in part because his state was under “invasion.” Twenty-three Republican attorneys general filed a brief in agreement.

“In both scope and effect, the wave of illegal migrants pouring across the border is like an invasion,” their brief read. “The Constitution’s text, the principle of sovereignty in the federal design, and the broader constitutional structure all support the conclusion that the States have a robust right to engage in self-defense. Contained within that right is presumptively acts to repel invasion.”

Texas’ invasion argument did not prevail. The 5th Circuit has blocked S.B. 4., and a lower court and a three-judge panel skewered Abbott’s constitutional argument in the buoy case. In 2024, the full 5th Circuit ruled under another law that Abbott was entitled to leave the floating barriers in place. It avoided ruling on Texas’ invasion claim altogether — but not without one judge dissenting. Trump appointee James Ho argued courts have no ability to second-guess executives about which threats rise to the level of an invasion and justify military action.

In his speech, Vought credited “the massive take-up rate” of the invasion legal theory to his and Cuccinelli’s behind-the-scenes efforts. Now the concept is being taken seriously by the president’s top advisers as they threaten to upend a core civil liberty.

“The definition of ‘invasion’ has broad implications for civil liberties — that’s pretty obvious,” Somin said. “They’re trying to use this as a tool to get around constitutional and other legal constraints on deportation and exclusion that would otherwise exist. But they also want to use it to undermine civil liberties” for U.S. citizens.

Molly Redden is covering legal affairs and how the second Trump administration is attempting to reshape the legal system. You can send her tips at molly.redden@propublica.org or via Signal at mollyredden.14.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Molly Redden.

The Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP), InMedia, The Witness, ReNews, and Boomhead are among the outlets that have received backdated tax demands from the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) since November 2023, according to the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), the city’s main press union. The HKJA said it is also under audit.

“Hong Kong is taking a page out of the playbook of authoritarian regimes elsewhere that are using similar intimidation tactics,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Targeting journalists with tax audits without sufficient evidence not only rings alarm bells for press freedom but also raises concerns more broadly about Hong Kong as a safe and reliable location to do business.”

Tax authorities claimed that the news outlets, journalists and some of their family members had not reported their full income from 2017 to 2019, according to HKJA chairperson Selina Cheng, who said the audits contained errors and were “unreasonable.” Cheng and her parents are among those under tax probes.

The HKJA said the IRD sent separate back tax demands to each media outlet and to the association itself, with a combined total of around HK$700,000 (US$89,450), based on the union’s calculations. It added that more than 20 individuals — including journalists, former board members, and some of their family members — also received tax demands, with the total amount requested reaching up to HK$1 million (US$127,900).

In a statement, the HKFP said that it is undergoing a seven-year audit after being “randomly selected” by the IRD.

Hong Kong has seen a dramatic decline in press freedom since the enactment of the Beijing-imposed national security law in 2020. Several independent media outlets, including Apple Daily and Stand News, have been forced to shut down, while journalists have been assaulted, arrested and imprisoned. 

In response to CPJ’s request for comment on the audits, an IRD spokesperson said the department follows “established procedures” and the industry or background of a taxpayer “has no bearing” on such audits.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Abdelfattah has spent nearly a decade in prison and now faces an additional two years of detention—despite Egyptian legal provisions that should have guaranteed his release last September. On May 20, the journalist’s 69-year-old mother, Laila Soueif, resumed a near-total hunger strike in protest.

On March 4, CPJ led a joint letter signed by 50 prominent human rights leaders, Nobel laureates, writers, and public figures, urging President el-Sisi to issue a presidential pardon for Abdelfattah.

Read the full letter in English here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The Journalist Assistance Network comprises five founding members: the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom of the Press Foundation, International Women’s Media Foundation, PEN America and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 

Since the November 2024 U.S. election, requests for assistance from journalists and newsrooms in a wide range of areas have increased significantly to each of the five groups. The requests include everything from digital and physical security advice, to immigration guidance, to legal risk assessment and newsgathering support. 

“Journalists and newsrooms from across the country are increasingly concerned about a raft of measures and actions that threaten press freedom in the United States,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “We hope this network will make it easier for individuals and media organizations to locate advice and assistance.” 

The Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom of the Press Foundation, International Women’s Media Foundation, PEN America and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press will:

• Coordinate holistic safety and legal training for U.S. journalists, journalist organizations and newsrooms.
• Promote safety and legal resources to help reporters understand what assistance is available.
• Refer requests for support to other and any member organizations within the Journalist Assistance Network who can meet the specific need. 

“We hope that by making it clear that we are working together – and that through any one of these organizations you have access to the resources of the broader coalition – we can help reporters get the best information in the fastest way possible,” said IWMF Executive Director Elisa Munoz.

The five organizations have many years of experience working together and have been actively collaborating to provide safety and legal training and assistance across the United States, along with a number of other organizations and partners working in the field of press freedom and journalist protection. They have deep experience in physical safety, digital security, legal support, mental health, and online abuse defense.

“We want to make it easy for any journalist who needs help to find it, no matter the issue. We’re bringing our organizations together, each with specific expertise in the areas where we know the needs are most critical, to do just that,” said Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press President Bruce D. Brown.

“With the unprecedented number of journalists in dire need of more digital security and legal protection, this coalition could not come at a better time,” said Freedom of the Press Foundation Executive Director Trevor Timm. “It’s all hands on deck in this unprecedented moment, and by working together we will be able to help more journalists than ever before.” 

“With both the media and civil society increasingly under attack in the U.S., it is particularly important that organizations like ours come together to ensure that journalists and newsrooms can find the support they need to continue doing their vital work,” said PEN America Interim Co-CEO Summer Lopez.

The network is expected to expand over time to include participating partners that offer services, resources and information in these fields and to better direct requests for support. Please contact emergencies@cpj.org if you are interested in more information about joining the network.

Notes for Editors

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an international non-profit organization headquartered in the United States. It provides free digital and physical safety training, individual advice and resources to journalists and newsrooms, as well as financial assistance for short-term emergency support to journalists following an incident related to their work. CPJ provided safety training and advice to more than 950 journalists in the United States in 2024 compared to 106 the previous year and just 20 in 2022. For media queries, please contact press@cpj.org.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides free legal support and legal resources, including training, direct legal representation, and reporting guides, to protect First Amendment freedoms and the news gathering rights of journalists both nationally and locally in the U.S. The Reporters Committee’s Legal Hotline is available 24/7 to working journalists and offers a privileged, secure way to obtain legal help from its attorneys. For media queries, please contact media@rcfp.org.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) protects and defends press freedom in the United States. Its digital security training team has taught thousands of journalists how to better protect themselves online. FPF also builds secure communications tools used by many of the nation’s top investigative news organizations, systematically tracks press freedom violations in the United States, and advocates for stronger laws protecting reporters’ rights at the local, state and national level. For media queries, please contact trevor@freedom.press. 

The International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF) strengthens equal opportunity and press freedom worldwide. In the United States, IWMF offers customizable Hostile Environment and Emergency First Aid Trainings (HEFATs), in-person newsroom trainings, and one-on-one safety consultations. Topics can include risk assessment, contingency plans, personal security, psychosocial and mental health awareness, and preparedness discussions surrounding active shooters and protests. In 2024, the IWMF trained and surveyed 610 journalists across 200 media outlets in 13 U.S. states. For media queries, please contact cfox@iwmf.org. 

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide. Its digital safety programming focuses on helping journalists, writers, and their advocates navigate online harassment and other safety challenges; collaborating with media organizations, publishers, and other institutions to strengthen safety infrastructure; conducting research and advocacy on digital safety and free expression; and working in coalition with partner organizations to fight back. PEN America also co-led, alongside the Aegis Safety Alliance and Journalist Assistance Network members, a recent pilot project to coordinate proactive and reactive safety support for U.S.-based journalists and news outlets at risk following the US election. For media queries, please contact strimel@pen.org.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

An Auckland University law academic says Samoa’s criminal libel law under which a prominent journalist has been charged should be repealed.

Lagi Keresoma, the first female president of the Journalists Association of Samoa (JAWS) and editor of Talamua Online, was charged under the Crimes Act 2013 on Sunday after publishing an article about a former police officer, whom she asserted had sought the help of the Head of State to withdraw charges brought against him.

JAWS has already called for the criminal libel law to be scrapped and Auckland University academic Beatrice Tabangcoro told RNZ Pacific that the law was “unnecessary and impractical”.

• READ MORE: Samoa press group calls for repeal of criminal libel laws after journalist charged
• Samoan journalists association calls to repeal law
• Treating journalists with respect – Samoa Observer editorial
• Other Samoa media freedom reports

“A person who commits a crime under this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding 175 penalty units or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months,” the Crimes Act states.

JAWS said this week that the law, specifically Section 117A of the Crimes Act, undermined media freedom, and any defamation issues could be dealt with in a civil court.

JAWS gender representative to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) said Keresoma’s arrest “raises serious concerns about the misuse of legal tools to independent journalism” in the country.

Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson called on the Samoan government “to urgently review and repeal criminal defamation laws that undermine democratic accountability and public trust in the justice system”.

Law removed and brought back
The law was removed by the Samoan government in 2013, but was brought back in 2017, ostensibly to deal with issues arising on social media.

Auckland University’s academic Beatrice Tabangcoro told RNZ Pacific that this reintroduction was widely criticised at the time for its potential impact on freedom of speech and media freedom.

She said that truth was a defence to the offence of false statement causing harm to reputation, but in the case of a journalist this could lead to them being compelled to reveal their sources.

The academic said that the law remained unnecessary and impractical, and she pointed to the Samoa Police Commissioner telling media in 2023 that the law should be repealed as it was used “as a tool for harassing the media and is a waste of police resources”.

Tonga and Vanuatu are two other Pacific nations with the criminal libel law on their books, and it is something the media in both those countries have raised concerns about.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Journalists in Papua New Guinea are likely to face legal threats as powerful individuals and companies use court actions to silence public interest reporting, warns Media Council of PNG president Neville Choi.

As co-chair of the second Community Coalition Against Corruption (CCAC) National Meeting, he said lawfare was likely because Parliament had passed no laws to protect reporters and individuals from such tactics.

Choi said journalists were being left unprotected against Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) — legal actions used by powerful individuals or corporations to silence criticism and reporting.

• READ MORE:The Media Council of PNG

“In Papua New Guinea right now, we don’t have any law to stop SLAPPs,” Choi said.

“Big corporations or organisations with more money can use lawsuits to silence people, civil society and the media. That’s the reality.”

SLAPPs are lawsuits filed not to win on merit, but to drain resources, silence critics, and stop public debate.

In some other countries, anti-SLAPP laws exist to protect journalists and whistleblowers. But in PNG, no such legal shield exists.

Legal pressure for speaking out
“We’ve seen it happen,” Choi added, referring to ACTNOW PNG’s Eddie Tanago, a civil society advocate who has faced legal pressure for speaking out.

“He’s experienced it. And we know it can happen to journalists too.”

Despite increasing threats, journalists do not have access to legal defence funds or institutional protection.

Choi confirmed that there was no system in place to defend reporters who were hit with defamation lawsuits or other forms of legal retaliation.

“Our advice to journalists is simple. Do your job well. The truth is the only protection we have,” he said.

“If you stick to facts, follow professional ethics and report responsibly, you reduce your risk. But if you make a mistake, you leave yourself open to lawsuits.”

The Media Council, in partnership with Transparency International under the CCAC, are discussing the idea of drafting an anti-SLAPP law but no formal proposal has been put forward yet.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

“The charges against Landry Ulrich Nguéma Ngokpélé over a publication in his newspaper sends a chilling signal across the media sector in the Central African Republic,” said Moussa Ngom, CPJ’s Francophone Africa representative. “Central African Republic authorities must secure his immediate release and ensure journalism is not criminalized.”

Ngokpélé’s was arrested by a man in civilian clothes, who pointed a gun at him and threatened to shoot if the journalist refused to cooperate, according to his lawyer, Roger Junior Loutomo, who spoke with CPJ.

On May 14, an investigating judge ordered Ngokpélé’s transfer to Ngaragba prison in Bangui from a gendarmerie office, where he had been held since his arrest.

On May 19, the judge charged Ngokpélé with complicity in rebellion, spreading information likely to disturb public order, inciting hatred andrevolt, and subversion against the constitution and the state, according to Loutomo and copies of the charge sheet, which CPJ reviewed.

Loutomo told CPJ the case was related to a report published in the paper’s April 22 edition, which said that the former president, who has been living in exile in Guinea Bissau, had returned to the capital.

Bozizé, who is sought by the International Criminal Court for possible crimes against humanity, seized power in 2003 and was toppled in 2013. In 2020, he set up a rebel group seeking to overthrow the government, for which Central African authorities sentenced him in absentia in 2023 to life in prison.

The charge sheet cites sections 11, 12, 292, 295, 381, and 382 of the penal code, so Ngokpélé would face time in prison if found guilty. However, the country’s press law holds that offenses involving journalism should fall under that law, which would only carry fines.

Ngokpélé was previously detained for more than two months in 2021.

Government spokesperson Maxime Balalou told CPJ via messaging app that he was “closely” following Ngokpélé’s case. Balalou asked to be sent questions via email, but when CPJ requested his email address, he did not respond.  

CPJ’s calls to the gendarmerie and the Bangui court went unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“The prosecution of Öznur Değer is yet another example of the witch hunt against critical journalists in Turkey. Reporting on sensitive issues does not equate with promoting violence,” said Özgür Öğret, CPJ’s Turkey representative. “Turkish authorities should quickly free Değer, drop the charge against her, and put an end to such vindictive prosecutions.”

Değer, news director for the pro-Kurdish site JİNNEWS, was taken into police custody during a February 7 raid on her home in the southeastern city of Mardin and put under arrest by a court.

The court subsequently charged her with making propaganda for the PKK, which Turkey recognizes as a terrorist organization.

The PKK, which has been fighting Turkish security forces since 1984, announced in May that it was planning to disband as part of a new peace process.

In the four-page indictment, reviewed by CPJ, prosecutors said PKK-related news, photographs, and videos that Değer posted on the social media platform X between 2021 and 2024 were terrorism propaganda.

The indictment also said Değer was under investigation for “insulting a public officer,” who filed a complaint about comments Değer made at a funeral wake in December.

Değer is appealing a six year and three month sentence issued against her and seven other journalists in June 2024 for membership of a terrorist organization. She spent almost seven months in jail, from October 2022 to May 2023, awaiting trial.

CPJ’s email requesting comment from the chief prosecutor’s office in Mardin did not receive a reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Later Thursday, an Istanbul court arrested Karabay, pending trial, on suspicion of “making targets of those who were tasked to combat terrorism” and “insulting” Turkish President Recep Tayyip. The arrest order, which CPJ reviewed, cites the journalist’s social media posts in April about the prosecution of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the arrested opposition mayor of Istanbul, according to the arrest order.

Karabay’s posts on X after March 21 have been deleted. CPJ couldn’t confirm when these posts were deleted or by whom. On May 16, his account on X was blocked in Turkey “in response to a legal demand.”

“Courts in Turkey keep arresting reporter Furkan Karabay on similar suspicions year after year, which points to a pattern of making him an example of due to his reporting,” said Özgür Öğret, CPJ’s Turkey representative. “Turkish authorities should free Karabay without delay and end the chokehold they have on the flow of the news in the country.” 

In a separate trial last month, Karabay was found guilty of defamation and “insulting” Erdoğan. He received a delayed prison sentence of 25 months in total due to reporting on the main opposition party’s claims of corruption against the president’s family.

On November 9, 2024, an Istanbul court arrested Karabay, pending trial, on a similar charge of suspicion of “making targets of those who were tasked to combat terrorism,” “insulting a public servant,” and “knowingly distributing misleading information to the public,” due to reporting on the arrest of an opposition mayor. He was released on the next day, and that trial is yet to begin.

On December 28, 2023, another Istanbul court arrested Karabay on suspicion of “making targets of those who were tasked to combat terrorism,” as well as defamation, due to his reporting on allegations of corruption in the judiciary. He was released pending trial in January 2024, and acquitted from both charges in October.

Journalists in Turkey who report on members of the judiciary or judicial developments are frequently charged with “making targets of those who were tasked to combat terrorism.”

CPJ’s email to the Istanbul chief prosecutor’s office did not receive a reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Barrett Newkirk, a former reporter for The Desert Sun, was subpoenaed on April 24, 2025, in connection with the Indio, California, trial of an ex-mayor accused of taking bribes. A judge ruled in May that the state’s shield law doesn’t protect Newkirk from being questioned about his coverage.

According to court filings reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, Newkirk worked on two articles in April 2015 concerning Stephen Pougnet, then mayor of Palm Springs, and his dealings with two real estate developers.

Pougnet was indicted in 2019 alongside developers John Wessman and Richard Meaney on felony counts of bribery, perjury and conflict of interest, The Desert Sun reported. Less than a month before the case was finally set to go to trial, prosecutors subpoenaed Newkirk, ordering him to appear to testify before the jury on May 1.

Attorneys representing Newkirk and The Desert Sun asked a judge to strike down the subpoena in an April 30 filing, arguing that the former reporter’s testimony was not needed to verify Pougnet’s quotes in the articles and that, given more than a decade had passed, he was unable to recall details to authenticate the quotes.

They added that anything else that Newkirk might be asked about at trial — such as his newsgathering and reporting techniques — is squarely protected by the state’s shield law, particularly as it is the prosecution that seeks his testimony.

Were the subpoena to be enforced, they argued, it would “convert Newkirk and The Desert Sun into a ‘research tool’ or ‘investigative arm’ of the prosecution, called to testify whenever they may have obtained news or an interview that the government might find useful.”

The prosecution argued in its response that reporter’s privilege only extends to information about sources and unpublished materials, not the standards and practices behind attributing quotes in articles.

“Indeed, some might say that the public is entitled to know what standards apply to quoting and attributing statements in the press, and in fact many journalistic organizations post their standards on these issues online,” Deputy District Attorney Natasha Sorace wrote.

Superior Court Judge Samuel Diaz Jr. sided with the prosecution on May 7, but ruled that he would hear additional arguments on whether the evidence would be admissible before compelling Newkirk to testify, according to The Desert Sun.

Before a hearing could be scheduled, Pougnet pleaded guilty May 14 to more than a dozen counts — including bribery, conspiracy and holding prohibited financial interests in public contracts — and entered no contest pleas to three perjury charges.

The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker was unable to confirm whether the prosecution still intends to pursue Newkirk’s testimony at the trial of Pougnet’s co-defendant, Wessman, which is scheduled to begin May 19 or 20.

Newkirk, his attorney and Gannett — The Desert Sun’s parent company — did not respond to requests for comment. The Riverside County District Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the pending case.

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

“Blocking journalist Ahmad Noorani’s YouTube channel and filing a criminal case against him is indicative of Pakistan’s relentless campaign against exiled journalists,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “It also appears that the journalist’s family is being targeted back home in Pakistan. The brutal intimidation of journalists and their families must stop, and the Pakistan government must allow the media to report freely.”

On May 12, YouTube told Noorani that it had blocked his channel, with 173,000 followers, in Pakistan based on a legal complaint from the government, according to the journalist and a copy of YouTube’s email, reviewed by CPJ.

On May 13, Pakistan’s National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency opened an investigation into Noorani, accusing him of running hate campaigns against the armed forces, under the controversial Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, for which he could face up to three years imprisonment.

The investigators cited two of Noorani’s posts on the social media platform X that criticized Pakistan’s army during last week’s conflict with India, according to a copy of the First Information Report (FIR), reviewed by CPJ.

On March 18, about two dozen individuals identifying themselves as police forcibly entered and searched Noorani’s family home in the capital Islamabad and took his two brothers to an undisclosed location for 30 days.

U.S.-based Noorani told CPJ that he believed his brothers’ forced disappearance was because of his March 17 investigative report, which said the military was misusing its influence over civilian institutions.

CPJ’s text message to information minister Attaullah Tarar requesting comment received no response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

After his April 23 arrest in eastern Somali Region, Ahmed, the founder of Jigjiga Television Network, appeared in court on incitement charges on April 25, and was remanded in custody pending investigations, the journalist’s relative, who declined to be named, citing fear of retribution, told CPJ.

In the interview, Abdikarim Ali Ahmed demanded justice for his son’s death, saying that an officer kicked the teenage boy’s head, while wearing boots, after which he was hospitalized and died from his injuries. Regional police commander Abdi Ali Siyad told the BBC’s Somali service, “The boy simply died. There is no one to be held accountable.”

Meanwhile, on April 17, parliament passed a widely criticized amendment to the 2021 media law, increasing government control over the regulatory Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA), which is responsible for issuing sanctions against news outlets that violate press ethics, including by revoking their licenses. Press and human rights groups have warned that this shift in power “opens the door to undue influence” from politicians. 

“Ethiopia’s hostility to the press has been evident in the frequent arrests of critical journalists, and now the country is well on its way to reversing the gains it made in passing its 2021 media law, once considered progressive,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Muthoki Mumo. “Authorities should release journalists detained for their work and amend or repeal laws that can be used to undermine press freedom.”

More April arrests

In the month of April, in addition to Ahmed’s detention and the brief arrest of three Addis Standard employees as part of a raid on their newsroom, CPJ also confirmed:

• On April 5, police arrested Muhyidin Abdullahi Omar, an editor at the state-owned Harari Mass Media Agency and founder of the YouTube channel Biyyoo Production, in eastern Harari Region, his wife Helen Jemal and a person with knowledge of the case, who declined to be named, citing fear of reprisal, told CPJ.

On April 28, Omar was charged with defamation and disseminating disinformation in connection with two Facebook posts, according to the charge sheet, reviewed by CPJ, in which he alleged mismanagement at a local mosque and corruption at the regional attorney general’s office.

He could face up to three years imprisonment for defamation under a 2016 law and another three years for incitement under an anti-hate speech law, which broadly defines the crime.

Muyhidin had been on administrative leave from Harari Mass Media Agency since 2022, following an arrest over his social media activity, but on April 7, 2025 — two days after his latest arrest — his employer suspended his salary pending a disciplinary meeting, according to Helen and documents reviewed by CPJ.

• On April 10, Fanuel Kinfu, founder of the online outlet Fentale Media, was taken from his home in the capital Addis Ababa. The journalist told CPJ that police questioned him over alleged defamation in relation to commentary videos, published between April 2023 and June 2024. On April 13, he was released on bail of 15,000 birr (US$113).

• On April 23, Abebe Fikir, a reporter with the weekly newspaper The Reporter, was arrested. Abebe told CPJ that he was seeking comment from city officials about a housing dispute but the police accused him of filming without permission — an allegation he denied. On April 25, he was released on bail of 10,000 birr (US$75), without charge.

Increased government power over the press

Ethiopia’s 2021 media law won praise for progressive provisions, including for reclassifying defamation as a civil rather than criminal offence. But the amended law, passed with only one dissenting vote, increases the government’s power over the press. Sections that allowed the public to nominate candidates to the media authority’s board and four slots reserved for media and civil society representatives have been repealed, with board members instead being chosen from “relevant” bodies.

It also removed a ban on board members being members of a political party — a rule that the government had been criticized for breaking in parliament and transferred power to nominate the authority’s director general from the board to the prime minister.

Ethiopia is sub-Saharan Africa’s second worst jailer of journalists, after Eritrea, according to CPJ’s latest annual prison census, with six behind bars on December 1, 2024. One of these, Yeshihasab Abere, was released in January.

In March, seven journalists from the privately owned Ethiopian Broadcasting Service were detained. All have since been freed. Two are awaiting trial on charges of dissemination of hateful disinformation.

CPJ did not receive any responses to queries sent via email and messaging app to federal, Harari and Somali regional police and government spokesperson Legesse Tulu.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party introduced the bill on Tuesday in Parliament on the heels of Orbán’s pledge to crack down on a “shadow army” of critical voices, including journalists and activists, in a “spring cleaning.”

“The introduction of this Russian-style ‘foreign agent’ bill is a chilling signal that Orbán’s government is prepared to eliminate the last remnants of Hungary’s independent media in its pursuit of unchecked power ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections,” said Tom Gibson, CPJ’s deputy advocacy director, EU. “This measure amounts to Hungary’s complete abandonment of its responsibilities as a member of the European Union and would fundamentally undermine democracy. European leaders must act swiftly.”

The bill would grant Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Office more power to establish “a register of organizations that threaten Hungary’s sovereignty with foreign aid,” according to an analysis by Médiafórum, the Association of Independent Media Outlets. 

Listed organizations would face severe restrictions, including: mandatory public asset declarations from senior officers, founders, and oversight committee members; a requirement to obtain anti-money laundering approval for foreign funding; loss of eligibility for 1% tax donations from citizens; classification of leaders as “politically exposed persons”; and a mandate to secure proof from all donors that funds did not originate abroad. 

The bill classifies any funding from outside Hungary as a potential sovereignty threat, including EU grants or donations as low as €5.

A joint statement signed by Hungarian NGOs and independent media outlets called the bill “an unprecedented attack on the country’s still-independent institutions” and “an authoritarian attempt to maintain power” that aims to “silence all critical voices and dismantle the remaining traces of Hungarian democracy.”

CPJ’s email to the office of Zoltán Kovács, the Hungarian government’s international spokesperson, did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Zhang was first detained on May 14, 2020, while reporting on the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. Zhang completed a four-year prison sentence for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”, but was arrested again in August 2024 on the same charges, three months after her release. Prior to her latest arrest, Zhang continued to report on the harassment of Chinese activists on her social media. If convicted, she could face up to five more years in prison.

Zhang has been hospitalized twice in detention due to intermittent hunger strikes. In January 2025, detention center authorities subjected her to forced nasogastric feeding after she began another hunger strike to protest her second arrest. The date of her trial is still unknown.

Read the joint statement here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Bulavinskaya is one of hundreds of journalists who went into exile after President Aleksandr Lukashenko intensified his jailing and persecution of the press following 2020 protests calling for his ouster. Increasingly, they face the long arm of the state. According to CPJ research, more than 60 journalists in exile are under investigation or facing criminal charges in cases that were opened after they left Belarus, constituting a massive campaign of transnational repression against those who continue to report from abroad.

Journalists are being charged under so-called “special proceedings,” a 2022 addition to the criminal procedure code that allows Belarusian authorities to convict people in absentia. At first, the proceedings were mostly used against dissidents, politicians, and activists; in 2024, authorities began charging journalists in an escalation against the exiled press, according to the Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ), a trade group operating from abroad since 2021. (Four of BAJ’s own employees face criminal cases according to the organization.)

CPJ spoke with 15 journalists facing criminal cases and found that the legal process typically follows the same pattern: Journalists learn that they are under investigation, or facing charges, when law enforcement officials pay intimidating visits to relatives still in Belarus or when they spot their names on Russia’s online database of wanted suspects, which since a 2010 regional treaty includes Belarusians. (Belarus’s own “wanted” database is not frequently updated.) Journalists’ remaining property in the country is seized pending a trial, which virtually always results in a conviction. The journalists are then sentenced and ordered to pay heavy fines, which serve as a pretext for the full confiscation of their property.

“Having repressed virtually everyone inside the country they could, the authorities have now turned their attention to those abroad,” said Barys Haretski, deputy head of BAJ, in an interview with CPJ. “The authorities have no intention of reducing the number of repressive acts; they want to keep not only those inside the country in fear, but also those who have been forced to emigrate.”

Journalists have little recourse once placed under “special proceedings,” which are nontransparent by design. According to BAJ, journalists are typically unaware of what might have triggered the criminal cases against them until the trial begins. (Bulavinskaya, for example, still does not know the nature of the investigation or any charges against her.) Journalists are represented by government-appointment lawyers who virtually never communicate with them. If they are sentenced to prison, such as three of the 15 CPJ spoke with, they can technically appeal, but it’s practically impossible as most never see a sentencing document, said Haretski. Once sentenced, they have to be extremely cautious about travel. If they enter a country with an extradition treaty with Russia or Belarus, they can be deported to serve their jail time.

CPJ emailed the Belarusian Investigative Committee, the agency in charge of pretrial proceedings, requesting comment on the use of “special proceedings” against journalists but received no response.

Journalism equated with extremism

Journalists facing “special proceedings” are typically charged with extremism. Since Belarus tightened its extremism laws in 2021 in response to nationwide protests, authorities have been steadily using them to erode press freedom by fining and imprisoning independent journalists and blocking outlets labeled as “extremist.”

Freelance journalist Zmitser Lupach, who is in exile in Poland, learned that he was charged with “promoting” extremism, among other criminal charges when acquaintances sent him a photo of himself in a display of accused criminals in Belarus’ northwestern city of Hlybokaye. Later, authorities seized his apartment and a police officer paid a visit to his 81-year-old mother to ask if Lupach was planning to come back to Belarus.

“I can’t imagine how one can equate journalistic work with extremist activity… I cannot explain it by anything other than revenge on the part of the Lukashenko regime,” he told CPJ. “It is impossible to keep silent about this. Because the state, which should protect its citizens regardless of their political beliefs, is behaving like the ultimate criminal.”

Another journalist in exile, Tanya Korovenkova, is facing a criminal case that she suspects is related to her previous work for independent news website Pozirk, which the Interior Ministry declared an “extremist” formation in December. The ministry also published a list of people affiliated with Pozirk that included her name, she told CPJ.

Her property was seized in October. In February, Belarusian KGB officers asked Korovenkova’s relatives about her activities. “I regard such actions against me, as well as against my other journalist colleagues, as persecution for our work,” she said.  

Families impacted

Journalists told CPJ that family members in Belarus are harassed, with sometimes devastating consequences. In December 2023, Iryna Charniauka’s 74-year-old mother was summoned for questioning about her daughter by the Belarusian Investigative Committee; months later, law enforcement officers visited the elderly woman’s home to inform her that the journalist was charged with promoting extremist activity over a July 2023 interview she gave to Belsat TV about the conviction of her husband, journalist Pavel Mazheika. Soon after, Charniauka’s property was seized.

“My mother is an old person, and she ended up in the hospital due to a heart attack and this is the direct consequence of all those things,” Charniauka told CPJ.

She said the legal process has been a black box.

“It is likely that a lawyer was assigned to me, but I don’t know who and I don’t know how to find out. When my colleague journalists had such special proceedings [opened against them], they found out that their government-assigned lawyers admitted their guilt… I cannot go back to Belarus, because I know what will be next,” she said.

Siarhei Skulavets, a former journalist with Belsat TV who is facing an extremism case, told CPJ that in 2024 officers twice searched the homes of his 64-year-old mother and his 85-year-old grandmother.

“Two weeks after the second search, which took place on December 31, my grandmother died. The cause of death was a heart attack. I believe that the law enforcement is indirectly to blame for this, as they inflicted severe trauma on her,” he said, adding that the home he left behind in 2023 was also searched.

“The authorities are waging a war against free speech in the country. Journalists who have not [left the country] are in jail. Law enforcement officers in turn have lost their conscience and are conducting an all-out sweep, destroying people’s lives, their destinies and families,” he said.

Self-censorship in exile

Exiled journalists told CPJ they made the difficult choice to leave in part to continue in the profession, but the use of “special proceedings” has forced them to question the safety of their work.

“Special proceedings and repression against relatives in Belarus are a crucial factor in why the vast majority of independent journalists in exile work anonymously and often refuse to work on camera in order to maintain their anonymity,” Haretski told CPJ.

“Close people with whom I had contact asked me to stop communicating with them,” another journalist facing criminal proceedings told CPJ under condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “They were very afraid of hurting me and themselves of course [by maintaining communication]. They were induced several times to ‘cooperate,’ in other words, to find out information from me and pass it on to the authorities. …This is a powerful lever of pressure, and of course it hurts a lot, but I hope that it is temporary,” she said.

“I would really like to continue to stay in the profession. But unfortunately, all the things I have built up, year after year, have been taken away from me,” she said.

Another journalist told CPJ under condition of anonymity that law enforcement came to his parents’ workplace before he realized he was on Russia’s wanted list. The journalist said “special proceedings” have succeeded in making exiled journalists think twice about continuing to cover the country they left behind.

“This is repression of journalists, an attempt to stop their activity,” he told CPJ. “And it does work – journalists go into self-censorship mode.”

The long arm of the state: Three exiled journalists facing criminal cases

Olga Loiko, a former editor of now-shuttered news website Tut.by, was sentenced in absentia this year on charges of inciting hatred, tax evasion, organizing a protest, and calling for sanctions. She has not been able to determine the exact sentence.  

“There is no doubt that I and the rest of the Tut.by staff are being persecuted for our journalistic work, for our exceptionally accurate and professional coverage of the events on the eve of and after the 2020 presidential election,” she said. “And the brutality of the persecution … is exclusively because of Lukashenko’s personal trauma, who believes that the West ordered [the protests], paid journalists and opponents, spies, etcetera, because otherwise he would have to believe that Belarusians hate him — and quite massively. And journalists are not the reason, nor the instigators of this hatred.”

Uladzimir Khilmanovich, a freelance journalist and human rights activist, was sentenced last August to five years in prison and a fine of 40,000 Belarusian rubles (US$12,224) on extremism charges. In January, court bailiffs confiscated his TV, washing machine, and refrigerator, and he anticipates that all of his property, including other household appliances, a rural plot of land, and a two-room apartment, will eventually be confiscated.

“The whole judicial system in today’s Belarus is built exclusively on repressiveness and persecution on political grounds for dissent,” he said.

Fyodar Pauluchenka, editor-in-chief of Reform.news, learned he was placed on Russia’s wanted list in March, about six months after his parents and daughter were summoned for interrogation by the Belarusian KGB.

“The authorities are trying to put pressure through my parents on me for my professional activities… They were forced to sign a non-disclosure document, and I cannot find out the details. They are scared,” he said. “This is a common practice of pressure on Belarusian journalists. Fortunately, I don’t have any property in Belarus, otherwise it would be confiscated.”

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Anna Brakha.

World Press Freedom Day is not just a celebration of the vital role journalism plays — it is also a moment to reflect on the pressures facing the profession and Pacific governments’ responsibility to protect it.

This was one of the key messages delivered by two guest speakers at The University of the South Pacific (USP) Journalism’s 2025 World Press Freedom Day celebrations this week, the UN Human Rights Adviser for the Pacific, Heike Alefsen, and Fiji Media Association’s general secretary, Stanley Simpson.

In her address to journalism students and other attendees on Monday, chief guest Alefsen emphasised that press freedom is a fundamental pillar of democracy, a human right, and essential for sustainable development and the rule of law.

• READ MORE: PNG’s Gorethy Kenneth: 23 years of fearless journalism and unwavering truth
• Fiji media’s Stan Simpson blasts ‘hypocrites’ in social media clash over press freedom
• Samoa down in RSF media freedom world ranking due to ‘authoritarian pressure’
• Indonesian postcard image ‘dangerous’ but Fiji a rising star in RSF press freedom index
• Fiji media welcomes credible news services, but not ‘pop-up propagandists’, says Simpson
• PINA on World Press Freedom Day – facing new and complex AI challenges
• Rabuka salutes Fiji media but warns against taking freedom for granted
• NZ fares well in latest RSF press freedom index as authoritarian regimes stifle Asia-Pacific media
• RSF 2025 World Press Freedom rankings
• RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025: economic fragility a leading threat to press freedom

“Media freedom is a prerequisite for inclusive, rights-respecting societies,” Alefsen said, warning of rising threats such as censorship, harassment, and surveillance of journalists — especially with the spread of AI tools used to manipulate information and monitor media workers.

AI and human rights
She stressed that AI must serve human rights — not undermine them — and that it must be used transparently, accountably, and in accordance with international human rights law.

“Some political actors exploit AI to spread disinformation and manipulate narratives for personal or political gain,” she said.

She added that these risks were compounded by the fact that a handful of powerful corporations and individuals now controlled much of the AI infrastructure and influenced the global media environment — able to amplify preferred messages or suppress dissenting voices.

“Innovation cannot come at the expense of press freedom, privacy, or journalist safety,” she said.

Regarding Fiji, Alefsen praised the 2023 repeal of the Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) as a “critical turning point,” noting its positive impact on Fiji’s ranking in the RSF World Press Freedom Index.

However, she emphasised that legal reforms must continue, especially regarding sedition laws, and she highlighted ongoing challenges across the Pacific, including financial precarity, political pressure, and threats to women journalists.

According to Alefsen, the media landscape in the Pacific was evolving for the better in some countries but concerns remained. She highlighted the working conditions of most journalists in the region, where financial insecurity, political interference, and lack of institutional support were prevalent.

“Independent journalism ensures transparency, combats disinformation, amplifies marginalised voices, and enables people to make informed decisions about their lives and governance. In too many countries around the world, journalists face censorship, detention, and in some cases, death — simply for doing their jobs,” she said.

Strengthening media independence and sustainability
Keynote speaker Stanley Simpson, echoed these concerns, adding that “the era where the Fiji media could survive out of sheer will and guts is over.”

“Now, it’s about technology, sustainability, and mental health support,” he said.

Speaking on the theme, Strengthening Media Independence and Sustainability, Simpson emphasised the need for the media to remain independent, noting that journalists are often expected to make greater sacrifices than professionals in other industries.

“Independence — while difficult and challenging — is a must in the media industry for it to maintain credibility. We must be able to think, speak, write, and report freely on any matter or anyone,” Simpson said.

According to Simpson, there was a misconception in Fiji that being independent meant avoiding relationships or contacts.

“There is a need to build your networks — to access and get information from a wide variety of sources. In fact, strengthening media independence means being able to talk to everyone and hear all sides. Gather all views and present them in a fair, balanced and accurate manner.”

He argued that media could only be sustainable if it was independent — and that independence was only possible if sustainability was achieved. Simpson recalled the events of the 2006 political upheaval, which he said contributed to the decline of media freedom and the collapse of some media organisations in Fiji.

“Today, as we mark World Press Freedom Day, we gather at this great institution to reflect on a simple yet profound truth: media can only be truly sustainable if it is genuinely free.

“We need democratic, political, and governance structures in place, along with a culture of responsible free speech — believed in and practised by our leaders and the people of Fiji,” he said.

The new media landscape
Simpson also spoke about the evolving media landscape, noting the rise of social media influencers and AI generated content. He urged journalists to verify sources and ensure fairness, balance and accuracy — something most social media platforms were not bound by.

While some influencers have been accused of being clickbait-driven, Simpson acknowledged their role. “I think they are important new voices in our democracy and changing landscape,” he said.

He criticised AI-generated news platforms that republished content without editorial oversight, warning that they further eroded public trust in the media.

“Sites are popping up overnight claiming to be news platforms, but their content is just AI-regurgitated media releases,” he said. “This puts the entire credibility of journalism at risk.”

Fiji media challenges
Simpson outlined several challenges facing the Fiji media, including financial constraints, journalist mental health, lack of investment in equipment, low salaries, and staff retention. He emphasised the importance of building strong democratic and governance structures and fostering a culture that respects and values free speech.

“Many fail to appreciate the full scale of the damage to the media industry landscape from the last 16 years. If there had not been a change in government, I believe there would have been no Mai TV, Fiji TV, or a few other local media organisations today. We would not have survived another four years,” he said.

According to Simpson, some media organisations in Fiji were only one or two months away from shutting down.

“We barely survived the last 16 years, while many media organisations in places like New Zealand — TV3’s NewsHub — have already closed down. The era where the Fiji media would survive out of sheer will and guts is over. We need to be more adaptive and respond quickly to changing realities — digital, social media, and artificial intelligence,” he said.

Young journalists respond
During a panel discussion, second-year USP journalism student Vahefonua Tupola of Tonga highlighted the connection between the media and ethical journalism, sharing a personal experience to illustrate his point.

He said that while journalists should enjoy media freedom, they must also apply professional ethics, especially in challenging situations.

Tupola noted that the insights shared by the speakers and fellow students had a profound impact on his perspective.

Another panelist, third-year student and Journalism Students Association president Riya Bhagwan, addressed the intersection of artificial intelligence and journalism.

She said that in this era of rapid technological advancement, responsibility was more critical than ever — with the rise of AI, social media, and a constant stream of information.

“It’s no longer just professional journalists reporting the news — we also have citizen journalism, where members of the public create and share content that can significantly influence public opinion.

“With this shift, responsible journalism becomes essential. Journalists must uphold professional standards, especially in terms of accuracy and credibility,” she said.

The third panelist, second-year student Maniesse Ikuinen-Perman from the Federated States of Micronesia, acknowledged the challenges facing media organisations and journalists in the Pacific.

She shared that young and aspiring journalists like herself were only now beginning to understand the scope of difficulties journalists face in Fiji and across the region.

Maniesse emphasised the importance of not just studying journalism but also putting it into practice after graduation, particularly when returning to work in media organisations in their home countries.

The panel discussion, featuring journalism students responding to keynote addresses, was moderated by USP Journalism head of programme Dr Shailendra Singh.

Dr Singh concluded by noting that while Fiji had made significant progress with the repeal of the Media Industry Development Act (MIDA), global experience demonstrated that media freedom must never be taken for granted.

He stressed that maintaining media freedom was an ongoing struggle and always a work in progress.

“As far as media organisations are concerned, there is always a new challenge on the horizon,” he said, pointing to the complications brought about by digital disruption and, more recently, artificial intelligence.

• Fiji rose four places to 40th (out of 180 nations) in the RSF 2025 World Press Freedom Index to make the country the Oceania media freedom leader outside of Australia (29) and New Zealand (16).

Niko Ratumaimuri is a second-year journalism student at The University of the South Pacific’s Laucala Campus. This article was first published by the student online news site Wansolwara and is republished in collaboration with Asia Pacific Report.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Wansolwara.

“Treating journalism as a criminal act deprives Salvadorans of essential information,” said Cristina Zahar, CPJ’s Latin America program coordinator. “Prosecutors should abandon these cases now and ensure El Faro journalists can safely report on matters of public interest.”

On May 3, El Faro reported that sources close to the attorney general’s office had warned of imminent warrants for seven of its reporters on two possible charges: apología del delito (“advocacy of crime”), which is punishable by six months to two years in prison, and agrupaciones ilícitas (“unlawful association”), which carries a five- to 10-year prison term. Both statutes are commonly used against suspected gang members.

Salvadoran authorities have detained some 85,000 people since March 2022, when Bukele announced a crackdown on gangs under a state of emergency, suspending constitutional rights and civil liberties.

El Faro editor-in-chief Óscar Martínez, a 2016 recipient of CPJ’s International Press Freedom Award, told CPJ that the warrants followed a smear campaign by government officials accusing the outlet of being financed by gangs. On Tuesday, human rights lawyers with the Salvadoran Journalists Association formally requested that the prosecutor’s office provide information on the alleged investigation into El Faro’s journalists. 

CPJ emailed El Salvador’s attorney general’s office and the president’s office but did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“It is deeply worrying that René Capain Bassène’s life sentence has been upheld despite all the flaws in the investigation that led to his imprisonment and the documented abuses he suffered behind bars,” said Moussa Ngom, CPJ’s representative for Francophone Africa. “Senegalese authorities must clarify the current conditions of detention of René Capain Bassène and implement all possible means to ensure his release.”

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Bassène was transferred overnight on May 3 to the Senegalese capital of Dakar, where he was placed in a special ward for sick detainees at Aristide Le Dantec Hospital.

Bassène was arrested in 2018 in connection with the deaths of 14 loggers shot to death in the Bayotte Forest in the southern Casamance area of Senegal. In 2022, he was sentenced to life in prison for complicity in murder, attempted murder, and criminal association. 

A 2025 CPJ investigation found that the case against Bassène was severely flawed, as the journalist’s co-accused were forced to implicate him or sign inaccurate interview records. CPJ also found that the case relied on inconsistent evidence and that the journalist was mistreated behind bars. 

CPJ’s calls and messages to Ousseynou Ly, spokesman for the Senegalese presidency went unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“CPJ urges Indian authorities to ensure that responses to national security concerns remain firmly grounded in democratic principles and constitutional protections for press freedom,” said Kunāl Majumder, CPJ’s India Representative. “We call on the government to uphold transparency in content regulation, adhere to due process, and avoid using national security as a blanket justification to suppress independent journalism.”

On April 29, the Indian government ordered the blocking of the YouTube channel 4PM News Network, which has about 7.3 million subscribers, citing national security and public order. On May 1, 4PM Editor-in-Chief Sanjay Sharma filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the government’s order. The Supreme Court has asked the government to respond to Sharma’s petition.

Separately, on April 24, Rakesh Sharma, a senior journalist with the Dainik Jagran newspaper, was physically assaulted by supporters of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party while covering a protest in Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir, following the terrorist attack. Local police have filed a first information report (FIR), a document that opens an investigation, but there are no reports of arrests.

Meanwhile, police in Uttar Pradesh launched criminal investigations last week into political commentators and satirists Neha Singh Rathore and Madri Kakoti, who publishes under the name Dr. Medusa, for allegedly inciting unrest and threatening national unity through their online posts about the tourist attack, with potential prison sentences of three years to life if convicted.

In addition, Supreme Court lawyer Amita Sachdeva filed a complaint with the Cyber Crime South Division in New Delhi on April 29, accusing satirist Shamita Yadav, also known as “The Ranting Gola,” of anti-India propaganda after her video critiquing the government’s response to the attack was reposted by a Pakistani user.

On April 28, the Ministry of External Affairs sent a letter to Jackie Martin, the head of BBC India, expressing strong disapproval of the BBC’s use of the term “militant attack” to describe the event.

The Indian government has also blocked 16 Pakistani news, sports, and commentary YouTube channels following the attack, citing national security concerns.

These developments coincide with a Ministry of Information and Broadcasting advisory, reviewed by CPJ, that prohibits live coverage of anti-terrorist operations, citing security risks.

CPJ emailed India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the police departments overseeing the investigations for comment but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“These systematic attacks are clear examples of censorship, media repression, and obstruction of the free flow of information,” said Sara Qudah, CPJ’s regional director. “We condemn the Iranian authorities’ ongoing persecution of journalists and media outlets, which creates an environment of fear and intimidation.”

Between April 14 and April 21, six media directors and founders were convicted by political-press courts in Iran, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA). The convictions involved both private and state-affiliated outlets, including:

• Mehdi Rahmanian, director of the private reformist Shargh Daily on unknown charges
• A director of the state-run Fars News Agency, on charges of disclosing confidential information
• The director of the reformist newspaper Ebtekar, on charges of spreading rumors
• The director of the official state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), on charges of insult, slander, and dissemination of falsehoods
• The director of the independent Eslahat News platform, on charges of publishing false content
• The director of the economic news website Nabze Bazaar, on charges of disseminating fabricated material

The campaign of intimidation by Iranian authorities has continued to escalate. On April 22, security forces in Tehran threatened Kerman-based photojournalist Hassan Abbasi with arrest. Abbasi, the director of the banned news website Ashkan News, was summoned on charges of spreading false information.

On April 27, Karaj-based freelancejournalist and media activist Omid Faraghat, who focuses on political affairs, was also summoned.

That same day, security forces raided the home of journalist Mohammad Parsi, editor-in-chief of Kandoo magazine and director of two other media outlets, and seized his electronic devices. He was charged with offenses that include “propaganda against the state” and “spreading false information.”

In the wake of the April 26 explosion at a port near Bandar Abbas, in southern Iran, authorities have aggressively sought to suppress independent reporting, with an aim to control public discourse through the intimidation and censorship of media professionals.

Meanwhile, Nasrin Hassani, a journalist being held at Bojnourd Prison in Iran’s eastern Khorasan province, is enduring inhumane and degrading conditions, according to the recent report by press freedom group Defending Free Flow of Information in Iran (DeFFI). Hassani, a reporter for the state-run local newspaper Etefaghyeh and editor-in-chief of the social media-based outlet East Adventure Press, is serving the 15th month of her 19-month sentence in the general crimes ward, with inadequate access to medical care, poor sanitation, and denial of regular visits with her teenage son.

CPJ emailed the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York requesting comment on the suppression and detention of journalists but did not receive a response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The law requires such outlets to register their journalistic plans, projects and programs in a state-run registry, a violation of the right to professional secrecy, and puts disproportionate sanctions on activities described in vague terms. 

More than 270 organizations and journalists have signed the statement, which rebukes the law as a mechanism of censorship and “the result of a political coalition that has seized control of nearly all branches of the state.”

Read the full statement in Spanish here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“There has been a systematic erosion of press freedom in Macao, with the denial of entry to journalists and restricted access to public events. The detention of two reporters simply for attempting to cover a legislative session marks a disturbing escalation in the suppression of independent journalism,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “Authorities must drop any potential charges against All About Macau’s reporters and allow journalists to work without interference.”

Macao, or Macau, is a former Portuguese colony, which reverted to Chinese rule in 1999 under a “One Country, Two Systems” framework that promised a high degree of autonomy and wider civil liberties than the Chinese mainland.

On April 17, All About Macau’s editor-in-chief Ian Sio Tou and another reporter were barred from entering the Legislative Assembly chamber to cover a debate on the government’s annual Policy Address. Ian is also president of the Macau Journalists Association.

Police said the case would be transferred to the Public Prosecutions Office for investigation as the journalists were suspected of violating Article 304 of the Penal Code relating to “disrupting the operation” of government institutions, for which the penalty is up to three years in prison.

All About Macau is recognized for its critical and in-depth reporting on political and social issues.

Two days earlier, three All About Macau reporters were barred from entering the chamber to hear Macao Chief Executive Sam Hou Fai’s Policy Address, outlining government proposals for the year.

In a video posted by All About Macau, which quickly went viral online, Ian Sio Tou displayed her Legislative Assembly-issued press card to numerous officials who physically blocked the journalists from the hall.

Police did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

On Friday, FBI agents arrested a county judge in Milwaukee and charged her with obstructing justice and concealing an individual from arrest. After an undocumented immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, appeared before her in court on an unrelated misdemeanor charge, Judge Hannah Dugan learned that ICE agents were waiting in the hallway outside her courtroom to arrest him. Dugan told the agents they could not perform the arrest without a judicial warrant and adjourned the hearing, directing Flores-Ruiz to leave her courtroom into a public hallway. Milwaukee-based attorney Ann Jacobs says it appears that two DEA agents who remained in the hallway as Flores-Ruiz left did not take any action toward an arrest while he was still inside the courthouse. He was later pursued and arrested outside. One week later, FBI agents arrested Dugan, accusing her of helping Flores-Ruiz avoid arrest. “The message is crystal clear: ‘If you cross the Trump administration, we will arrest you,’” says Jacobs. “The goal is to chill judges from ruling against the Trump administration,” with “the hopes that they can cudgel the judiciary into simply becoming meekly obedient to the executive branch.” Dugan’s longtime friend Emilio De Torre, who spoke at protests held this week at the FBI’s offices in Wisconsin, says FBI Director Kash Patel’s public celebration of her arrest is “absolutely disgusting and damaging,” and slams the effects of Trump’s attacks on civil society. “People here in Milwaukee are not taking kindly to the fact that our community, our economy, our family, now our courthouses and our schools are being disrupted by the heavy-handed overreach that we see.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

“Kyrgyz authorities continue a deplorable pattern of shuttering news outlets on illegitimate grounds that their ‘negative’ reporting could spark unrest,” said CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia Senior Researcher Anna Brakha. “In a democratic society, critical news coverage is not a grounds to shutter media. Kyrgyz authorities must allow Aprel TV to operate freely.”

According to the prosecutors’ filing, reviewed by CPJ, authorities seek to close down Aprel TV by revoking its broadcast license and terminating its social media operations on the basis of an investigation by Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security.

The filing alleges that the outlet’s critical reporting portrays the authorities “in an unfavorable light” and “undermines the authority of the government,” which “could subsequently be aggravated [by] other social or global triggers and provoke calls for mass unrest with the aim of a subsequent seizure of power.”

In a statement, Aprel TV rejected the accusations, saying it is the function of journalism to focus on “sensitive issues of public concern,” in the same way “state media constantly report on government successes.”

Aprel TV has around 700,000 subscribers across its social media accounts and broadcasts via Next TV, which reports say is owned by an opposition politician. In 2019, authorities seized Aprel TV’s assets and its reporters have since been harassed by law enforcement officials.

The channel, whose flagship news show is highly critical of the government and often adopts an irreverent tone, was previously owned by former Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev but the outlet said in its statement that it is no longer affiliated with any politicians or political forces.

Following current President Sadyr Japarov’s ascent to power in 2020, Kyrgyz authorities have launched an unprecedented assault on the country’s previously vibrant media, shuttering leading outlets and jailing journalists often on the grounds that their critical reporting could lead to social unrest.

CPJ’s emails to the office of the prosecutor general and the State Committee for National Security for comment but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

A top official in the Department of Labor this week informed all staff members that they could face criminal charges if they speak to journalists, former employees or others about agency business.

A memo sent Monday by Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s chief of staff, Jihun Han, and obtained by ProPublica, states that “individuals who disclose confidential information or engage in unauthorized communications with the media may face serious legal consequences.”

Among the ramifications, the memo states, are “potential criminal penalties, depending on the nature of the information and the applicable laws,” and “immediate disciplinary actions, up to and including termination.”

The guidance document went on to say that “any unauthorized communication with the media,” regardless of what information is shared or how it is shared, “will be treated as a serious offense.”

The memo listed laws, regulations and a departmental guide to explain its legal position. Among them was a regulation concerning civil servants’ ethical obligations and a law, the Freedom of Information Act, guaranteeing the public the right to inspect certain public records.

“This message will serve as your only warning,” the memo stated.

The warning comes as current and former Labor Department employees have spoken to the news media about harms they see resulting from the dismantling of portions of their agency, which enforces laws guaranteeing rights to a safe workplace, fair pay and protections against discrimination.

“It’s very chilling,” a Labor Department employee who requested anonymity for fear of retribution told ProPublica. “It’s never a good look when you’re telling people to never talk about what you’re doing.”

Labor Department spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“These types of missives can chill the free flow of information to the press and the public,” said Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “That’s a concern.”

Civil servants do not sacrifice their First Amendment rights by accepting a job with the federal government, but there do exist higher restrictions on what information they can disclose publicly. Government agencies that handle classified information have on rare occasions launched criminal investigations against leakers, but those are typically invoked only when leaks involve classified national security intelligence or protected financial information, Rottman said.

“But normally, disclosures to the press or others would be a matter of employee discipline as opposed to carrying criminal sanctions,” he said.

While the memo raising the possibility of criminal penalties was sent to Labor Department employees, it reflects a common approach by the administration of President Donald Trump to guard against federal government employees speaking to reporters.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, for example, has publicly announced an aggressive pursuit of leakers. Elon Musk, who launched the Department of Government Efficiency, which is at the heart of the shake-up of the federal government, has bragged about his tactics in rooting out leaks at his companies. And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has blamed alleged leaks by former Pentagon staffers for reigniting controversy over his use of the Signal messaging app to discuss military operations.

Federal employees at various agencies told ProPublica that an air of suspicion has descended on their workplace during Trump’s second term, with rumors flying of surveillance of rank-and-file government workers. In the Department of Agriculture, for example, a banner temporarily appeared on government computers when employees logged in, telling them that “unauthorized or improper use of this system may result in disciplinary action, as well as civil and criminal penalties.”

Agriculture Department spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Labor Department employee told ProPublica that Monday’s memo felt like the latest attack on a workforce already weathering layoffs, spending freezes and reorganizations.

“It’s been horrible. It’s been a deeply exhausting roller coaster,” the employee said. “It’s very difficult to work when you’re in a constant state of being terrorized by your employer.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Mark Olalde.

Amid the growing retaliatory crackdown against noncitizen students for their First Amendment-protected speech and advocacy, the open letter explains that colleges and universities are not violating the law by providing housing or services to noncitizen students, including students whose visas have been revoked by the government. It further advises institutions that they are legally able to refuse to comply with warrantless searches of non-public areas, like dorm rooms, by ICE agents.

The letter also outlines a legal framework for responding to administrative subpoenas from ICE. In consultation with legal counsel, universities generally maintain the right to not respond to administrative subpoenas unless and until ICE obtains an enforcement order from a judge. Universities also have the right to publicize the subpoenas or alert students if their information has been targeted by an ICE subpoena.

“Universities must do everything they can to protect their students from intimidation or targeting by ICE, and they have the legal right to do so,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We reject the federal government’s extreme claim that housing and educating noncitizen students can violate the law. We hope this letter will empower institutions to stand firm in the face of radical bullying tactics.”

The letter can be read in full here.

Related Documents

• Open Letter to College and University General Counsels on: 1) 8 U.S.C. § 1324 Harboring Liability, and 2) ICE Administrative Subpoenas

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain

Cambridge, UK—Elon Musk may have a knack for thinking outside the box, but reportedly his twisted scheme to force even totally legal and law-abiding immigrants to lose their ability to work or continue to work legally is akin to his not-so-brilliant idea of putting “self-driving” Teslas on streets when the such vehicles have shown a propensity to drive into motorcycles and pedestrians. The sick scheme in this latest DOGE brainstorm is to force those immigrants to either work off-the-books without a valid Social Security number, risking deportation and loss of their already earned right to work and to stay permanently in the US, or to “self-deport” by returning to their home country.

The post The Trump Administration and DOGE Have Devised the Vilest Tactic Imaginable for Illegally Driving Out Legal US Immigrants appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Dave Lindorff.

The journalists could be jailed for up to three years for violating the law on gatherings and demonstrations. In the indictment, reviewed by CPJ, prosecutors argue that the journalists were participating in an illegal meeting as protesters. Photographs in which their press credentials and cameras were not visible were submitted as evidence to support this charge.

“This trial has been invented as a scare tactic to intimidate and deter all journalists in Turkey from reporting from the field. Experienced journalists should not be forced to explain in court why they were photographing Turkey’s biggest protests in a decade, in its biggest city,” said Özgür Öğret, CPJ’s Turkey representative. “Authorities should drop the charges against the five photojournalists who already suffer enough in trying to capture images of historic events while repeatedly being beaten, tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets.”

On March 24, Istanbul police raided the homes of Agence France-Presse’s Yasin Akgül, local NOW Haber TV channel’s Ali Onur Tosun, and freelancers Bülent Kılıç, Zeynep Kuray, and Hayri Tunç, as well as two photographers employed by local municipalities, Kuruluş Arı and Gökhan Kam.

All seven were arrested and then released on March 27, pending their April 18 trial.

Unrest broke out on March 19 following the detention of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, who is seen as a potential challenger to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

CPJ’s email to Istanbul’s chief prosecutor requesting comment did not receive a response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The journalists could be jailed for up to three years for violating the law on gatherings and demonstrations. In the indictment, reviewed by CPJ, prosecutors argue that the journalists were participating in an illegal meeting as protesters. Photographs in which their press credentials and cameras were not visible were submitted as evidence to support this charge.

“This trial has been invented as a scare tactic to intimidate and deter all journalists in Turkey from reporting from the field. Experienced journalists should not be forced to explain in court why they were photographing Turkey’s biggest protests in a decade, in its biggest city,” said Özgür Öğret, CPJ’s Turkey representative. “Authorities should drop the charges against the five photojournalists who already suffer enough in trying to capture images of historic events while repeatedly being beaten, tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets.”

On March 24, Istanbul police raided the homes of Agence France-Presse’s Yasin Akgül, local NOW Haber TV channel’s Ali Onur Tosun, and freelancers Bülent Kılıç, Zeynep Kuray, and Hayri Tunç, as well as two photographers employed by local municipalities, Kuruluş Arı and Gökhan Kam.

All seven were arrested and then released on March 27, pending their April 18 trial.

Unrest broke out on March 19 following the detention of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, who is seen as a potential challenger to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

CPJ’s email to Istanbul’s chief prosecutor requesting comment did not receive a response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“The Cuban government continues to engage in a campaign of harassment and intimidation against the country’s non-state media in an apparent effort to force them into silence or exile,” said Katherine Jacobsen, CPJ’s U.S., Canada, and Caribbean program coordinator, from Washington, D.C.

Hernández, 33, was arrested January 24 while reporting on drug trafficking in a school in the city of Matanzas, according to 14yMedio. He is currently being held at the Combinado del Sur prison, accused of “propaganda against the constitutional order”.

Barrenechea, 53, has been detained for five months awaiting trial on a “public disorder” charge after he participated in a protest on November 8, 2025, in Encrucijada, Villa Clara, after power blackouts caused by Hurricane Rafael. He faces a potential sentence of three to eight years in prison. His family is concerned about his deteriorating health.

Cuba has intensified repression against journalists under a new Law of Social Communication, which came into force on October 4, 2024. virtually outlawing the practice of journalism outside the official state media. The new law was promulgated after anti-government demonstrations swept the island in July 2021, resulting in the prosecution of people who reported or shared videos of the events online.

In recent months, Cuban state security agents have questioned at least eight journalists and media workers from non-state media outlets, many in connection with alleged crimes against the state, leading several to flee the country. El Toque reported that between 2022 and 2024, at least 150 Cuban journalists went into exile due to harassment by state security agents.

Several journalists told CPJ that officers warned them to stop working as journalists outside of official state media, and told them it was a crime to participate in foreign-funded training and support programs, or to receive grants from foreign governments.

Cuban authorities did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“The Cuban government continues to engage in a campaign of harassment and intimidation against the country’s non-state media in an apparent effort to force them into silence or exile,” said Katherine Jacobsen, CPJ’s U.S., Canada, and Caribbean program coordinator, from Washington, D.C.

Hernández, 33, was arrested January 24 while reporting on drug trafficking in a school in the city of Matanzas, according to 14yMedio. He is currently being held at the Combinado del Sur prison, accused of “propaganda against the constitutional order”.

Barrenechea, 53, has been detained for five months awaiting trial on a “public disorder” charge after he participated in a protest on November 8, 2025, in Encrucijada, Villa Clara, after power blackouts caused by Hurricane Rafael. He faces a potential sentence of three to eight years in prison. His family is concerned about his deteriorating health.

Cuba has intensified repression against journalists under a new Law of Social Communication, which came into force on October 4, 2024. virtually outlawing the practice of journalism outside the official state media. The new law was promulgated after anti-government demonstrations swept the island in July 2021, resulting in the prosecution of people who reported or shared videos of the events online.

In recent months, Cuban state security agents have questioned at least eight journalists and media workers from non-state media outlets, many in connection with alleged crimes against the state, leading several to flee the country. El Toque reported that between 2022 and 2024, at least 150 Cuban journalists went into exile due to harassment by state security agents.

Several journalists told CPJ that officers warned them to stop working as journalists outside of official state media, and told them it was a crime to participate in foreign-funded training and support programs, or to receive grants from foreign governments.

Cuban authorities did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Since January, thousands of federal workers have been abruptly fired and thrown out of jobs their families and communities rely on. They have an urgent need for legal support, which will only escalate throughout the spring as “reduction in force” plans go into effect. Federal workers’ unions and allied organizations are already fighting back in court, but thousands of federal workers still need individual legal advice and representation. Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network will mobilize and train thousands of lawyers to provide pro bono legal guidance to federal workers.

“Attacks on federal workers are attacks on all workers and on the essential services that our communities rely on daily,” said Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO. “Getting these workers the justice they deserve in the face of this onslaught will take all of us. I’m so proud to announce the formation of Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network with our partners today. This new network is a critical tool empowering federal workers to fight back. When we come together, we are stronger than any of us alone.”

The Legal Defense Network is powered by the AFL-CIO and We The Action with Democracy Forward, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM), National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the American Constitution Society (ACS), the Partnership for Public Service, and others.

“This is a moment for lawyers to support the federal workers who serve us all,” said Anna Chu, executive director of We The Action. “We The Action was founded on the fundamental premise that lawyers have the power to do good. At a moment when our federal workforce is under attack, lawyers are uniquely positioned to take action. We’re honored to power the Federal Workers Legal Defense Network and mobilize our community of volunteer lawyers to help federal workers get the justice they deserve.”

“Our nation’s civil servants are the backbone of our democracy—and they’re under attack for doing their jobs. Democracy Forward is committed to working alongside partners to defend these workers and the public institutions they serve,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which launched Civil Service Strong in the wake of the Trump inauguration. “The Rise Up Network will build on existing efforts to ensure federal workers have the legal support they need to fight back, continue to serve the American people and our Constitution, and support our communities.”

“AFGE is proud to partner together with allies across the nation to ensure patriotic American civil servants under relentless attack by this administration have access to the legal resources they need,” said Everett Kelley, AFGE’s national president.

“It is critical that federal workers have access to legal recourse as the Trump administration threatens and unlawfully terminates hundreds of thousands of proud civil servants,” said Randy Erwin, NFFE-IAM’s national president. “We are incredibly grateful for the attorneys and allies in our communities who stand with federal workers delivering essential services to the American people.”

“The Federal Workers Legal Defense Network is a welcome resource for federal employees whose careers and livelihoods are impacted by the administration’s attack on the federal workforce,” said NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald. “NTEU applauds the thousands of attorneys across the nation willing to volunteer their time to advocate on behalf of career civil servants. Programs like this demonstrate a basic truth about the federal workforce: Civil servants, the work they do and the services they provide, matter deeply to this country and American taxpayers. We’re proud to partner with the AFL-CIO, We The Action, and our other allies on this critical tool to advocate on behalf of those who swore an oath to the Constitution.”

“As this current administration continues to lead with lawlessness and cruelty, there’s a need for humanity and action to assist the people being affected. We are proud of lawyers in the ACS network and beyond who are stepping up to meet this moment for federal workers across the country through this critical network,” said Zinelle October, American Constitution Society’s interim president.

“Labor rights are civil rights and workers deserve dignity and fairness, including federal workers who serve us all,” said Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “The Leadership Conference, a coalition of more than 240 diverse national organizations, is dedicated to protecting, advocating for, and enforcing civil rights for everyone. We will not remain silent, and we will not stand by while this administration—or anyone else—violates the civil and constitutional rights of the people who keep our communities and our country functioning.”

For more information on Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network, visit workerslegaldefense.org.

Federal workers looking for legal support can begin the process here.
Lawyers interested in joining the Legal Defense Network can sign up here.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

A Dakar court judge charged Zik Fm editor-in-chief Simon Pierre Faye with spreading false news on April 14 and released him under judicial control. On the same day, the Dakar gendarmerie questioned for several hours online broadcaster Source A TV’s journalists Omar Ndiaye and Fatima Coulibaly, and freelance news commentator Abdou Nguer, over their comments on the death of a local official. Nguer’s lawyer told local media that the gendarmes detained the journalist on false news charges related to a TikTok post that does not belong to him. The post called for an autopsy of the official. Ndiaye and Coulibaly were released without charges.

“Senegalese authorities must drop all charges against journalist Simon Pierre Faye, release news commentator Abdou Nguer, and end their judicial harassment of journalists,” said Moussa Ngom, CPJ’s Francophone Africa Representative. “Authorities should instead focus their efforts on advancing promised reforms to decriminalize press offenses.”

Police arrested Faye on April 10 for a post on his outlet’s Facebook page, later deleted, republishing another article on the alleged distrust of President Faye’s leadership.

Responding to a parliamentarian’s question about Faye’s detention, Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko said that “penal policy will now be zero tolerance” for spreading “false news.”

CPJ has documented detentions of Senegalese journalists on false news charges, an offense punishable by one to three years in prison. In his campaign, President Faye promised to replace imprisonment for press offenses with fines. 

Separately, on April 13, police and gendarmes stopped and questioned Al Jazeera Qatar journalist Nicolas Haque and his camera operator, Magali Rochat, upon their arrival in the southern Ziguinchor city, where they sought to report on the return of people displaced by the region’s conflict. The journalists were sent back to Dakar the day after, Haque told CPJ.

CPJ’s email to the government’s information and communications office was not answered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Fresno Bee reporter Thaddeus Miller was subpoenaed by prosecutors for the city of Fresno, California, on April 8, 2025, in connection with a criminal case. The subpoena was dropped as moot following the case’s dismissal on April 10.

The case involved Wickey Twohands, a 77-year-old homeless man who was arrested in October 2024 for alleged violations of the city’s controversial anti-camping law.

The ordinance — among the toughest in the state — went into effect in September 2024 and bans camping, sitting or lying on public property at any time. Twohands pleaded not guilty on Jan. 21, 2025, and his trial was postponed until April 10 so his attorney could file motions to dismiss the case.

Deputy City Attorney Daniel Cisneros subpoenaed Miller and a second reporter, Fresnoland’s Pablo Orihuela, ordering the journalists to appear to testify at the hearing, the Bee reported. Both Miller and Orihuela had previously interviewed Twohands and reported on the charges against him.

Miller told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he had been out of the office each time they attempted to serve him from April 4 to 7, but the afternoon of April 8 they succeeded. He said the subpoena did not include any indication of what prosecutors intended to ask him, just a copy of his March article.

“The most frustrating part for me is it’s a good story, an interesting story, and now I can’t cover it,” Miller said. “It’s frustrating to try to be doing your job, where your whole job is being impartial and staying out of it, and then they try to pull you into it.”

The subpoenas to both Miller and Orihuela were rendered moot and functionally dropped after County Judge Brian Alvarez dismissed the case against Twohands on the grounds that the city violated his right to a speedy trial.

Following the dismissal, Fresno City Attorney Andrew Janz told a Bee editor that he had not reviewed or authorized the subpoenas and that they had not been issued according to protocol, noting that “any communication with media or journalists has to be run through the City Attorney.”

Janz told the Bee that the journalists were subpoenaed to confirm the validity of their reporting and what the defendant had told them during his interviews, and that in the future the city will first ask journalists to voluntarily testify about published information.

Miller said that Janz’s stance was concerning. “I kind of expected the city attorney to say that they had made a mistake and that we shouldn’t worry about it in the future, but that doesn’t seem to be the stance he’s taken,” Miller told the Tracker. “It’s worrisome that the city attorney’s office sounds like they want to be doing this more in the future.”

David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, told the Bee that while the state’s shield law does not prohibit such subpoenas, the California Evidence Code establishes that news articles are self-authenticating.

“Whether they ask or send subpoenas, it’s immaterial,” Loy said. “It’s unnecessary, superfluous and compromises the independence and neutrality of the press. People aren’t going to be able to trust reporters if they see reporters on the stand testifying to the government.”

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

The journalists were all accused of association with the anti-corruption movement of the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died last year in a Russian prison colony in the Arctic at age 47. All four denied the charges.

“The sentencing of four journalists at once to 5.5 years in prison is blatant testimony to Russian authorities’ profound contempt for press freedom,” said CPJ Chief Programs Officer Carlos Martinez de la Serna. “Russian authorities should immediately release Antonina Favorskaya, Artyom Krieger, Konstantin Gabov and Sergey Karelin, drop all charges against them, and stop jailing journalists in retaliation for their work.” 

The court also banned them from publishing any content on the internet for three years after they complete their prison sentences.

Russian authorities detained Favorskaya, a journalist with the independent news outlet SOTAvision, in Moscow on March 17, 2024, and charged her 11 days later with making and editing videos and publications and collecting material for Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), which Russian authorities have banned as extremist.

Favorskava’s case was later combined with the cases against Krieger, another SOTAvision journalist, as well as freelance journalists Karelin and Gabov, who are also accused of cooperation with Navalny’s FBK. The trial of the four started behind closed doors on October 2, 2024.

Krieger was detained in Moscow on June 18, 2024. SOTAvision rejected the charges against him, saying that he “has never been an activist and was not affiliated with any parties or movements.”

Karelin, a freelance videographer who has worked for The Associated Press  and German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW), was detained in the northern region of Murmansk on April 26, 2024. Gabov, a freelance journalist who has worked with Reuters, German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle, and U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), was detained the next day in Moscow.

CPJ emailed the branch of Russia’s Investigative Committee in Moscow for comment but received no response.

Russia is the world’s fifth-worst jailer of journalists, with CPJ’s most recent prison census documenting at least 30 journalists in prison on December 1, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

On March 14, the Trump administration signed an executive order gutting the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the parent organization of MBN and RFA. Under U.S. law, the editorial operations of USAGM entities are protected from political interference to ensure editorial independence. 

USAGM entities operate under an editorial firewall, separating journalists from any elected official in the U.S. The amicus briefs outline how intervention from the Trump administration would destroy RFA and MBN’s editorial independence. 

“The dismantling of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Asia, whose news outlets report on the reality of highly censored environments in the Middle East and Asia, is a betrayal of the U.S.’s historical commitment to press freedom,” said CPJ Chief Global Affairs Officer Gypsy Guillén Kaiser. “Attacks on the credibility of both outlets leave millions of people without reliable news sources, while endangering the intrepid reporters who report the facts.”

CPJ research shows at least four journalists and media workers with MBN outlets have been killed in connection with their work, including Abdul-Hussein Khazal, a correspondent for the U.S.-funded television station Al-Hurra who was shot dead in 2005 together with his 3-year-old son in the Iraqi city of Basra, and Tahrir Kadhim Jawad, a camera operator for Al-Hurra who died instantly when a bomb attached to his car exploded while he was on assignment. Bashar Fahmi Kadumi, another journalist for Al-Hurra, has been missing since 2012. 

CPJ has documented at least 13 journalists and media workers who worked for or contributed to RFA or its regional outlets have been imprisoned in connection with their work since 2008. Five of those remain in prison today, including Shin Daewe in Myanmar and Nguyen Tuong Thuy in Vietnam, both held on anti-state charges.

In recent weeks, CPJ and RCFP filed amicus briefs about the White House barring AP from covering White House events and legal efforts to protect Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America after Trump’s executive order. 

###

About the Committee to Protect Journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

“The Venezuelan government’s crackdown on the press has persisted for months, intensifying following the July 28 disputed reelection of President Nicolás Maduro,” said CPJ’s Latin America program coordinator, Cristina Zahar, in São Paulo. “Public scrutiny is a crucial component of democratic accountability and a free press, and Nakary Mena Ramos and Gianni González must be freed without condition.”

A criminal court on April 10 ordered Mena, a reporter with the independent news site Impacto Venezuela, to remain in detention at a women’s prison on the outskirts of the capital city of Caracas on preliminary charges of “hate crimes” and “publishing fake news,” according to the National Press Workers Union (SNTP).  

Impacto Venezuela posted that Mena, 28, and González, who is being held at El Rodeo II prison near Caracas, were denied access to private lawyers but assigned public defenders.

A pro-government journalist criticized Mena’s report on rising crime in Caracas – a sensitive issue for the government –a day before she and González went missing on April 8 near a public square in downtown Caracas. Minister Diosdado Cabello has also criticized the report, calling it “a campaign to instill fear in people.” 

Impacto Venezuela defended Mena’s report as based on interviews with average citizens and supported with government information.

The arrests of Mena and González come amid a sharp rise in oppression against Venezuelan journalists by Maduro’s authoritarian government, which has created a heightened environment of fear, stigmatization, and criminalization of independent voices. 

CPJ’s calls to the attorney general’s office in Caracas did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“The Venezuelan government’s crackdown on the press has persisted for months, intensifying following the July 28 disputed reelection of President Nicolás Maduro,” said CPJ’s Latin America program coordinator, Cristina Zahar, in São Paulo. “Public scrutiny is a crucial component of democratic accountability and a free press, and Nakary Mena Ramos and Gianni González must be freed without condition.”

A criminal court on April 10 ordered Mena, a reporter with the independent news site Impacto Venezuela, to remain in detention at a women’s prison on the outskirts of the capital city of Caracas on preliminary charges of “hate crimes” and “publishing fake news,” according to the National Press Workers Union (SNTP).  

Impacto Venezuela posted that Mena, 28, and González, who is being held at El Rodeo II prison near Caracas, were denied access to private lawyers but assigned public defenders.

A pro-government journalist criticized Mena’s report on rising crime in Caracas – a sensitive issue for the government –a day before she and González went missing on April 8 near a public square in downtown Caracas. Minister Diosdado Cabello has also criticized the report, calling it “a campaign to instill fear in people.” 

Impacto Venezuela defended Mena’s report as based on interviews with average citizens and supported with government information.

The arrests of Mena and González come amid a sharp rise in oppression against Venezuelan journalists by Maduro’s authoritarian government, which has created a heightened environment of fear, stigmatization, and criminalization of independent voices. 

CPJ’s calls to the attorney general’s office in Caracas did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“The reclassification of imprisoned commentator Sonia Dahmani’s charges as a felony is yet another alarming escalation in the Tunisian government’s use of cybercrime Decree Law 54 to intimidate and punish critical voices,” said CPJ Program Director Carlos Martínez de la Serna. “Tunisian authorities must immediately release Dahmani, drop all charges against her, and put an end to the ongoing judicial harassment against journalists and commentators in the country.”

Dahmani, a lawyer and political commentator on IFM radio and Carthage Plus TV, was arrested in May 2024 and is currently serving a 32-month prison sentence on charges in connection with televised remarks about the state of Tunisia’s prisons. The case was filed by the General Directorate of Prisons under Article 24 of the cybercrime Decree-Law 54 on spreading false news charges. 

On Thursday, April 10, the Tunis Court of Appeals upheld felony charges against Dahmani and referred her case to the criminal court, ignoring a February 3 Court of Cassation ruling that found the cybercrime law should only apply to crimes committed via digital systems and not to opinions expressed through traditional media. 

Dahmani faces five charges for her media commentary; four are classified as misdemeanors. 

According to CPJ’s December 1, 2024, prison census, at least five journalists were behind bars in Tunisia, the highest number recorded since 1992. The crackdown has intensified since President Kais Saied’s 2021 power grab—when he dissolved parliament, took control of the judiciary, and gave himself powers to rule by decree.

CPJ’s email requesting comment on Dahmani’s prosecution from the Tunisian presidency did not receive any response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Pablo Orihuela, a housing reporter for the nonprofit news outlet Fresnoland, was subpoenaed by prosecutors for the city of Fresno, California, on April 4, 2025, in connection with a pending criminal case.

The case involves Wickey Twohands, a 77-year-old homeless man who was arrested in October 2024 and may be the first to go to trial for alleged violations of the city’s controversial anti-camping law.

The ordinance — among the toughest in the state — went into effect in September 2024 and bans camping, sitting or lying on public property at any time. Twohands pleaded not guilty on Jan. 21, 2025.

Orihuela reported on the charges against Twohands in February after his trial was postponed so his attorney could file motions to dismiss the case. The parties are due back in court April 10 for a ruling on the motions and, if the case proceeds, the start of the jury trial.

Deputy City Attorney Daniel Cisneros ordered Orihuela to appear to testify at the hearing with less than a week’s notice, according to a copy of the subpoena reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

The request did not provide any indication of what the journalist would be questioned about, and included only a copy of Orihuela’s February article obtained April 3, according to the header.

Orihuela declined to comment until after the hearing and Cisneros did not respond to a voicemail requesting comment.

David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, wrote a letter on Orihuela’s behalf objecting to the subpoena the day it was issued.

“Even if the subpoena were timely and properly served, California’s reporter shield law absolutely protects Mr. Orihuela against a subpoena from the City compelling him to testify about any unpublished information,” Loy wrote. “Accordingly, the City should immediately cease attempting to subpoena Mr. Orihuela.”

Loy told the Tracker that the subpoena was improperly served, as it was sent via email to Orihuela and Fresnoland Executive Director and Managing Editor Danielle Bergstrom, and that without proper service a witness has no legal obligation to comply.

“It’s obviously highly significant for any reporter or newspaper or publication to get a subpoena, even by email,” Loy said. “One would hope that government lawyers would be better educated on reporter shield law.

“I’m going to assume best intentions, until proven otherwise: that this is some good-faith mistake and that hopefully — now that I’ve written to the city explaining the law — they have stopped trying to subpoena a reporter.”

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

Mhlanga, a journalist for privately owned Heart and Soul Television, has been detained since February 24 on incitement charges for interviewing a war veteran who called for President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s resignation. 

“The repeated denial of bail is yet another example of the injustice that Blessed Mhlanga has been forced to endure for simply doing his job as an independent journalist covering all sides of Zimbabwe’s political story,” said CPJ Africa Regional Director Angela Quintal in New York. “Zimbabwean authorities should stop hounding Blessed Mhlanga and withdraw the charges against him, so that he can be free to report the news.” 

The journalist has been behind bars over offenses allegedly committed in his interview in November 2024 and further coverage in January 2025 of Blessed Geza, a veteran of Zimbabwe’s war for independence from white minority rule, who also accused Mnangagwa of nepotism, corruption, and failing to address economic issues.

On February 28, the Harare Magistrates Court denied Mhlanga bail. After several delays, the High Court dismissed an appeal of the bail ruling on March 21. Mhlanga’s lawyer, Chris Mhike, renewed the bail application in the magistrates court on April 4, but Magistrate Donald Ndirowei dismissed the appeal on Monday. Mhike told CPJ they will appeal the latest ruling.

If found guilty, Mhlanga could be jailed for up to five years and fined up to US$700 under the 2021 Cyber and Data Protection Act.

Zimbabwe’s government, in an effort to silence the press, has been jailing independent journalists and introducing laws to restrict freedom of expression, according to a recent CPJ report.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

In a 33-page ruling dated March 18, Regional Trial Court Judge Michael Ajoc acquitted three suspects — Jolito Mangompit, Reynante Saja Bongcawel, and Boboy Sagaray Bongcawel — due to lack of evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, according to multiple news reports.

“When the legal process fails to convict those responsible for the killing of journalists, impunity becomes more deeply entrenched,” said Shawn Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia representative. “Philippine prosecutors must leave no stone unturned in identifying and prosecuting the real killers of journalist Juan Jumalon.”

Jumalon was killed by an unknown assailant on November 5, 2023, in the city of Calamba, on the southern island of Mindanao. The attacker stole Jumalon’s gold necklace before escaping on a motorcycle driven by a waiting accomplice.

The court said none of the accused’s fingerprints matched those found at the crime scene and prosecutors failed to link Mangompit to the shooting directly.

The ruling ordered the release of the Bongcawels and called on authorities to find the “real killers and mastermind” to give Jumalon’s family “the justice they deserve.” Mangompit remained in detention in relation to a separate case.

The Philippines ranked ninth on CPJ’s 2024 Impunity Index, a per capita ranking of countries where journalists are murdered and the killers habitually go free. The Philippines has featured on the index for 17 consecutive years.

The Department of Justice’s Prosecution Office did not immediately reply to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The amicus briefs assert that allowing the Trump administration’s March 14 executive order to take effect would destroy RFE/RL and VOA’s editorial independence, with grave implications for these organizations’ mission and the safety of their journalists. Under U.S. law, the editorial operations of USAGM entities are protected from political interference to ensure editorial independence.

“For generations, VOA and RFE/RL have delivered reporting that broke the stranglehold of propaganda in closed societies. In doing so, their journalists have empowered millions of people across the world with the facts,” said CPJ Chief Global Affairs Officer Gypsy Guillén Kaiser. “By dismantling USAGM, the U.S. government is weakening the critical role of a free media and causing greater risk to journalists who have already paid a high price for reporting the facts.”

CPJ’s research shows that RFE/RL and VOA journalists often put themselves at risk by reporting in highly censored countries.

CPJ has documented at least nine journalists and media workers who worked for or contributed to VOA or its regional outlets who have been killed in connection with their work since 2003.

Another nine have been imprisoned over the same period, with two currently in prison: Sithu Aung Myint, a freelancer serving a prison term in Myanmar for sedition, and Pham Chi Dung, the founding chairman of the Independent Journalists Association of Vietnam and a freelance contributor to VOA.

CPJ reporting found that at least 13 journalists and media workers who worked for or contributed to RFE/RL or its regional outlets have been killed in connection with their work since 2000.

At present, four journalists who work for or contribute to RFE/RL or its regional outlets are in prison. Over the last 20 years, 18 journalists and media workers who worked for or contributed to RFE/RL or its regional outlets have been imprisoned, including CPJ 2024 International Press Freedom Awardee Alsu Kurmasheva.

###

About the Committee to Protect Journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

“Belarusian authorities continue to target members of the press in a reign of terror that has plagued the country since President Aleksandr Lukashenko’s disputed 2020 reelection,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s programs coordinator. “Authorities should drop all charges against journalist Anatol Sanatsenka, release him immediately, and ensure that no journalists are jailed for their work.”

Sanatsenka, former editor-in-chief of the now-shuttered Babrujski Kurier independent news site, was detained on March 28 after police searched his home in the eastern city of Babruysk. A court in Babruysk sentenced Sanatsenka to 15 days of administrative arrest on March 31 and the same day authorities searched the home of Sanatsenka’s nephew, the former owner of Babrujski Kurier.

A Belarusian Association of Journalists representative told CPJ, on condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisal, that Sanatsenka’s detention was “most likely” connected to his journalism.

Authorities previously held Sanatsenka for 30 days under similar charges in 2022. Babrujski Kurier’s website was blocked and labeled “extremist” in September 2022.

CPJ emailed the Belarusian Investigative Committee, the country’s law enforcement agency, for comment but did not receive any response.

Belarus is the world’s fourth-worst jailer of journalists, with at least 31 journalists behind bars, on December 1, 2024, when CPJ conducted its most recent prison census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“Turkey was a haven for foreign journalists covering the region just a decade ago. Swedish journalist Joakim Medin’s arrest upon traveling to Istanbul is a chilling reminder that the country has gravely changed,” said Özgür Öğret, CPJ’s Turkey representative. “Turkish authorities should release Medin without delay in order to avoid further tarnishing the country’s reputation in international media circles.” 

Medin, a reporter for the Swedish newspaper Dagens ETC, was immediately taken into police custody upon his arrival in Istanbul to cover civil unrest amid the government’s crackdown on the city’s opposition municipalities.

Turkish authorities have accused Medin of being involved in a January 11, 2023, anti-Erdoğan protest in Stockholm, according to multiple reports. Authorities claim the gathering was organized by people with ties to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which Turkey recognizes as a terrorist organization. Prosecutors in the capital city of Ankara have initiated a criminal investigation against 15 suspects, including Medin, in connection with the event, according to a statementfrom the directorate of communications at the president’s office. 

Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told Dagens ETC that his case is of the “highest priority,” and she is working with Sweden’s consulate general in Istanbul to get the journalist released. 

Separately, BBC correspondent Mark Lowen, who was covering Istanbul’s civil unrest was detained and deported by the authorities last week. Turkish authorities said he wasn’t accredited to work in the country.

CPJ’s email to the chief prosecutor’s office in Ankara and Istanbul regarding Medin and Lowen respectively but did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

“Together with a revamped ‘foreign agent’ law nearing enactment, repressive amendments to Georgia’s broadcast law look tailor-made to muzzle the country’s vibrant and defiant independent press,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s programs coordinator. “Georgian authorities should withdraw these restrictive media laws and reverse their deepening press freedom crackdown.”

The first bill would allow complaints over broadcasters’ ethics and impartiality to be heard by the Communications Commission (ComCom), a nominally independent regulatory body elected by parliament with the power to fine broadcasters up to 3% of revenue or suspend and revoke their licenses for infractions. At present, disputes over ethics and impartiality are adjudicated by broadcasters’ own self-regulatory bodies.

Ruling party officials argue that the changes introduce a “British model” of broadcast regulation. But analyses by local rights groups say the bill contains vaguer clauses than the UK’s Broadcasting Code and will be used to further government authoritarianism.

CPJ has previously criticized the expansion of ComCom’s powers to regulate and sanction broadcasters over content due to fears of partisan use.

A second bill would ban broadcasters from receiving “direct or indirect” funding from a foreign source.

The government’s move shuts off a potential avenue of survival for government-critical national broadcasters, who are already facing acute financial problems.

CPJ’s email seeking comment from the ruling Georgian Dream party did not immediately receive a reply.

Separately, on March 31, Georgian authorities denied entry to French photojournalist Jérôme Chobeaux, who has been reporting on ongoing anti-government protests. Authorities have previously denied entry to several Western photojournalists covering the protests, as well as multiple journalists from Russia, Belarus, and elsewhere.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Broadcast station WFXT, a Fox News affiliate in Boston, was subpoenaed by prosecutors on Feb. 7, 2025, for interview recordings and notes in connection with a murder trial in Dedham, Massachusetts.

A judge upheld the request later that month and the outlet turned over the materials in March, according to court records reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

According to the prosecutors’ request, WFXT began advertising Feb. 6 about “the biggest interview of the year”: a sit-down with its reporter Ted Daniels and Karen Read, who stands accused of the murder of her boyfriend in a case that has captured national attention. The interview aired Feb. 9.

After the case against Read ended in a mistrial in July 2024, prosecutors issued multiple subpoenas to news outlets and journalists ahead of the April 2025 retrial. Massachusetts does not have a formally recognized reporter’s shield law protecting journalists from being forced to disclose newsgathering materials.

Prosecutors had succeeded in subpoenaing the broadcast station in 2024, with Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone ordering WFXT to produce copies of all recordings and notes from interviews with Read’s parents and brother.

In their February 2025 request, prosecutors asked Cannone to order the production of all recordings and notes from interviews with Karen Read, including those that were never aired.

“The defendant has repeatedly used the media to promote her position,” prosecutors wrote. “The defendant and her counsel cannot avail themselves of a media strategy to publicize and promote the defendant’s varying claims to the public at large and the potential jury pool while simultaneously excising statements and admissions that may not be favorable to her cause.”

Cannone granted the request on Feb. 19, ordering WFXT to produce the materials by March 1. According to court filings, the station complied and turned over the files on March 3.

WFXT did not respond to requests for comment.

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

In an alarming retaliation against the free press in the United States, on February 12, 2025, the Trump administration barred AP from covering White House events and accessing the Oval Office and Air Force One after its decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico by its internationally known name. 

RCFP filed the amicus brief on February 24, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting that the exclusion of the AP from accessing White House events on the basis of its editorial viewpoint violates the First Amendment. CPJ and News/Media Alliance joined as co-amici on March 24, 2025.

“The Trump administration’s arbitrary ban of AP’s access to media events stifles freedom of speech and violates the First Amendment at a time when independent journalism is most needed,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “AP’s essential reporting ensures news outlets around the world can keep their audiences informed. The Trump administration must adhere to its stated commitment to freedom of expression and refrain from retaliating against news organizations for their independent editorial decisions.”