DAVID COOK / OPINION EDITOR

A few months ago, I wrote an opinion piece about the Pentagon’s attempt to impose a new journalism pledge that would have restricted how journalists report on the Department of Defense. While the policy ultimately collapsed after widespread backlash, it now reads less like an isolated controversy and more like an early warning sign of a broader campaign to control information and intimidate the press. That campaign may have intensified under Trump’s second administration, however its  foundation  was  laid  years earlier,  beginning  in  2016,  when attacks on the “fake news” media first became a political strategy.

Since  then,  those  attacks  have shifted from language to action.   The  Pentagon  pledge  was not about protecting classified information, as existing laws already do that. It was about testing how much control the government  could  take  over journalism itself. When  that  effort    failed,   the  pressure  simply  changed  form.  Restricting  access, threatening credentials and  sending  a  message  that aggressive reporting comes with consequences have become  part  of  the  new   normal,   signaling   that the goal is no longer to challenge the press, but to control it.

The current administration now  appears  to  have  crossed  its  most  dangerous  line.  The  arrests  of   journalists   Don   Lemon and Georgia Fort represent one of the clearest and most extreme confrontations between  the  federal  government and journalists in recent American history. Both Lemon and Fort were working as independent journalists when they were arrested by federal authorities after covering an  anti-ICE  protest   that  disrupted   a   service  at  Cities Church in St. Paul, Minn. 

After widespread demonstrations following the fatal shootings of Renee Good and  Alex  Pretti  by  federal immigration  agents,  a  grand jury in Minnesota indicted them and several protestors on conspiracy and civil rights charges related to the protest. Prosecutors say the protest amounted to a coordinated disruption of worship. 

Lemon, Fort and press freedom advocates, on the other hand,  have  emphasized  they were  there  to  document  the event, not to lead or organize it, and that  arresting  journalists  for covering a protest raises serious First Amendment concerns.

In a White House press briefing on Jan. 15, eight days after the killing of Renee Good, Press  Secretary  Karoline Leavitt  responded  sharply  when The Hill  reporter  Niall  Stanage questioned  the  administration’s defense   of   the   ICE   agent   involved in the killing of Renee Good.

“Why was Renee Good unfortunately and tragically killed?” Leavitt asked Stanage.

“Are you asking my opinion? An ICE agent acted recklessly and killed her unjustifiably,” Stanage responded.

“Okay, so you’re a biased reporter  with  a  left-wing opinion,” Leavitt snapped. “You’re a left-wing hack. You’re not a reporter, you’re posing in this room as a journalist, and it’s so clear by the premise of your question. And, you and the people in the media who have such bias, but fake like you’re a journalist, you shouldn’t even be sitting in that seat.” 

The monologue went on and the message was clear: report on an event that contradicts the Trump administration’s narrative, and prepare  to  be made an example of.

Video evidence shows an ambiguous story at best for Good’s shooter, ICE agent Jonathon Ross. While some Americans believe that this was an unjustifiable murder by a federal officer, others have seen the video evidence of the killing and decided that this was an act of self defense by the  ICE  agent.  While  people are of course allowed to come to this conclusion, the situation is unclear at best, making questioning from a journalist valid. The haste from Leavitt, which has been seen by Trump and other members of the cabinet, is a sign of a larger war against journalism.

These moments reveal something deeper and more dangerous than isolated controversies. They show a pattern in which questions aren’t answered transparently and journalists aren’t treated with respect. They’re met with resistance, hostility and legal jeopardy.  When  critics  ask tough questions about federal agents’  conduct,  the  response has the purpose to deflect, deny and  demean. That pattern doesn’t happen in a healthy democracy, but it happens in systems where power fears exposure more than it fears criticism. One  example  of  where  this  theory of censorship is tested  is in Iran, where journalists are under constant surveillance, deal with arbitrary arrests and receive long prison sentences for “spreading propaganda”. 

In a government where traditional checks and balances have been weakened by partisanship and seemingly unwavering loyalty to the executive  branch,  journalism  has  emerged  as  the fourth branch   of   government   to  restore  said  checks  and balances. The responsibility for maintaining democracy   has   fallen   on  journalists  to  act  as  the  eyes and ears of the public when the government fails to do so.

That  role  can  only  be fulfilled  if  journalists  are   free   to   operate.   This    means    having   the  ability  to  ask  hard  questions,  to pursue inconvenient truths and to speak truth to power without fear of arrest or retaliation. When reporting itself becomes criminalized or delegitimized, the entire idea of accountability collapses. The public loses information, and as a result, trust, causing the gap between power and the people to widen.

The Trump administration’s rhetoric and actions have made  it  clear.  It  is  more  about  control  than it is having favorable coverage. They want  the narrative. They want the public to see only what they allow and control reality itself. 

That means you, me, our friends,   our   families   and   anyone who relies on journalism are affected when the public’s right to know information is under attack. It is not just journalists  who   are  under  attack,  but  also  the very people that they serve: the American public. 

Information is  our  way  of  holding  those in power accountable, and propaganda is   how   those   in   power   hide from  scrutiny.  We  live  in  an era where the line between information and propaganda is extremely blurry, and when that  line  is  blurred,  democracy slowly  and  quietly  begins  to erode away, leaving the public less   informed,  and  thus,  less  free.

Regardless of whether Americans   agree  or disagree     with     the     Trump   administration’s policies, attacks on journalism should alarm everyone. Governments that act in good faith do not need to intimidate reporters, restrict access or punish those who ask difficult questions. An administration that treats the press as an enemy signals what they may believe is strength and unity, but in reality is fear of scrutiny. When those in  power  fear  scrutiny,  it suggests they have something   to   hide.   A   government   with something to hide cannot be trusted, and in a democracy, that loss of trust is far more dangerous than any headline.

Journalist Don Lemon waves to the press after being released from jail, following his arrest for covering a protest over the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Photo courtesy of @justjared/Instagram