IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.
Getty Images, Manu Vega
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists
Aug 19, 2025
The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.
In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.
The PRESS Act: Blocked in the Senate
The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression Act, commonly referred to as the PRESS Act, aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists:
- Establishes protections for journalist-source confidentiality nationwide.
- Protects journalists from having their data secretly seized by the government. There are currently no laws prohibiting the government from obtaining journalists’ records through third parties to learn who their sources are.
Introduced by Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Kevin Kiley (R-CA) in the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2023, the PRESS Act received significant bipartisan support, with nine Republican and nine Democratic cosponsors. Later, it was introduced by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) in the U.S. Senate but failed to pass. In commemoration of “World Press Freedom Day” on May 3, 2025, a piece of legislation was introduced to the 119th Congress to help protect journalists in place of the PRESS Act. Importantly, the legislation has neither passed nor contains either of the PRESS Act’s major provisions.
Without additional protections, journalists face an increasingly hostile environment in the U.S. The day after the 2024 presidential election, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement warning of an exceptionally hostile press environment in the United States compared to previous decades. President Trump has since sued ABC, CBS, and The Des Moines Register, and threatened to sue CNN.
Arguments for the PRESS Act
Advocates praise the PRESS Act for establishing federal journalist protections, which would offer journalists more protection than the current patchwork of state-level shield laws. While local authorities are restrained by state law, the federal government is not and has stronger surveillance capabilities. The Act would also provide uniformity so that a journalist’s protection is not dependent on geographic location within the country. Reporters covering national events or working on a project in different states would not be at risk of government surveillance in any state.
Another important aspect of the PRESS Act is its comprehensive definition of who a “journalist” is. The full definition included in the Act is as follows: “A person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.” Under this expansive definition, documentarians would also be protected. The PRESS Act would prevent the federal government from forcing documentarians to provide their outtakes, except in situations where the information would prevent terror or imminent violence.
Advocates also point to history as evidence that an expansion of journalism protections would not lead to national security issues. When Attorney General Merrick Garland established new press protections in 2021 that limited prosecutions from the U.S. Department of Justice, controversial leaks did not follow.
Supporters also say the Act would also protect journalists regardless of political affiliation. Presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have abused laws to spy on journalists. In fact, the George W. Bush Administration, the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration, and the Biden Administration were all accused and found guilty of using the state’s patchwork of laws to investigate journalists. Proponents highlight this as evidence that journalists of all political leanings need protection, no matter who is in the Oval Office.
Arguments Against the PRESS Act
Some worry that the Act would hinder law enforcement and national security. They say the PRESS Act would prevent the government from requiring journalists to disclose sources of damaging leaks. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), an outspoken opponent of the bill, said in a press release that “the PRESS Act would immunize journalists and leakers alike from scrutiny and consequences for their actions. This bill would prohibit the government from compelling any individual who calls himself a ‘journalist’ from disclosing the source or substance of such damaging leaks.”
Another concern Senator Cotton has against the bill is that it could give journalists legal protections that many others do not have. In a speech to the Senate, Senator Cotton said, “Thanks to this bill, reporters at CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times would have more rights and privileges than former presidents and vice presidents.” He argued in the same speech that reporters would have the right to possess classified information in an unsecured manner, a right that no other American has.
Others are concerned about the scope of the Act’s definition of “journalist.” With such an expansive definition, the PRESS Act may be overinclusive and protect those who disseminate misinformation or disinformation. After all, the bill does not effectively distinguish between a news reporter and a TikToker seeking to disseminate false information.
Political Developments and Future Prospects
Although the PRESS Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2024, President Trump explicitly opposed the legislation, and wrote “REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!” on Truth Social in November 2024. The bill was subsequently blocked by Senate Republicans. The PRESS Act has not been reintroduced in the current Congress. Given President Trump’s direct opposition to the legislation, the bill may be unlikely to pass during the current presidential administration if it is reintroduced.
Bolstering journalists’ rights continues to be a concern in the U.S. A day after the PRESS Act was rejected in the Senate, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that federal prosecutors seized journalists’ phone records against department rules during the first Trump administration. On June 5, an Australian reporter was shot with a nonlethal round by an officer while covering protests in Los Angeles. While the PRESS Act may not have passed, groups advocating for journalist rights may seek other legislative opportunities to provide similar protections while balancing concerns about national security and misinformation.
Amy L. Wong graduated from UCLA with a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and History with a minor in Education Studies. Amy is also an incoming graduate student at Northwestern pursuing a Master of Science in Journalism with a Specialization in Politics, Policy, and Foreign Affairs.
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists was originally published by The Alliance for Citizen Engagement.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant
AI generated image
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles
Aug 17, 2025
Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.
Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.
In Iowa Senate District 35, Democrat Mike Zimmer, president of the Central DeWitt School Board, defeated Republican Katie Whittington with 52% of the vote, flipping a district that Donald Trump carried by 21 points in 2024.
In Pennsylvania Senate District 36, Democrat James Andrew Malone, mayor of East Petersburg, narrowly edged out Republican County Commissioner Josh Parsons by less than 1%, marking the first time Lancaster County has sent a Democrat to the state Senate since 1879.
These wins, though numerically modest, signal potential voter backlash against GOP-led policies and redistricting efforts.
According to Bolts, August is the busiest month for competitive specials, with four districts in play where the 2024 presidential margin was within 15 points.
Viet Shelton, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told Newsweek, “Democrats are confident they will re-take the majority powered by an aggressive message focused on fighting for lowering prices and holding Republicans and Trump accountable for their record of broken promises”.
In a rare mid-decade redistricting push, Texas Republicans are attempting to redraw the state’s congressional map to add five new GOP-leaning seats — a move widely criticized as a partisan power grab. The proposed map, approved by the Texas Senate on August 12, would significantly dilute the voting power of Black and Latino communities, with districts like Rep. Al Green’s in Houston seeing the Black voting-age population drop from 39% to just 11%.
“This mid-decade redistricting isn’t about fair representation—it’s about politicians picking their voters instead of voters choosing their leaders,” said the Senate Democratic Caucus in a statement. The controversy has sparked a national redistricting arms race, with states like California and Florida signaling plans to redraw their own maps in response.
California Governor Gavin Newsom vowed to retaliate, telling MSN, “If Texas wants to rig the maps, California will make sure they pay a price. They want to steal five seats? We’ll match and secure more — and turn the tables on their entire strategy”.
This tit-for-tat redistricting war could reshape the congressional map before 2026, with both parties seeking to maximize safe seats. But the strategy risks alienating swing voters and escalating legal battles over gerrymandering and minority representation.
Recent national polls show Democrats leading Republicans on the generic congressional ballot. A CNBC survey conducted in early August found Democrats ahead by 5 points — 49% to 44% — while a YouGov/Economist poll showed a 6-point lead.
“Democrats are outperforming where the average out-party has been at this point in the cycle over the last five midterms. If the election were held today, they’d be favored to win the House," wrote G. Elliott Morris, Strength In Numbers.
Still, analysts caution that midterms are historically unfavorable to the party in the White House. With President Trump’s approval ratings slipping, Democrats hope to replicate the 2018 “blue wave” — but redistricting could blunt their gains.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent
Aug 17, 2025
President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.
The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.
Making Cities Vulnerable to Federal Overreach
Under the Home Rule Act, Congress retains ultimate control over the District’s laws and budget. D.C. elects its own mayor and city council, but federal lawmakers can overturn local legislation and must approve its budget. Most critically, the president can deploy the D.C. National Guard without the mayor’s consent—a power the executive does not have over state Guards. That unique arrangement makes the city an irresistible stage for any president looking to flex federal muscle without having to negotiate with a governor or legislature.
Trump sees that combination of high visibility and federal control as an opportunity too good to pass up. His second term has been marked by aggressive centralization of authority—through executive orders, personnel purges, and budgetary power grabs—and D.C.’s status offers a perfect test case. The capital becomes not just a city to govern, but a living set piece in a broader performance about Trumpian dominance and nebulous “law and order” appeals. If the tactic works here, it sets a precedent for similar federal incursions into other politically hostile cities, normalizing the idea that a president can override local governance whenever it’s politically convenient.
Deploying troops into civilian spaces is supposed to be rare and temporary, reserved for genuine emergencies like natural disasters or riots on a scale that local authorities cannot control. Yet in a time of decreasing crime, the deployment serves less as a response to danger and more as a theatrical assertion of authority. This is a classic strongman move: troops not to solve real problems, but to project strength, intimidate opponents, and create the illusion of a crisis only the leader can fix. Once the public accepts soldiers in the streets without an actual emergency, the door opens to more frequent and less justified deployments.
The hypocrisy is staggering. This is a president—and a party—that claims to champion limited government and local control, now trampling both to impose federal will on a city that has neither requested nor needed intervention. When 'small government' comes to mean deploying troops on domestic streets, it ceases to be a guiding principle and reveals itself as a convenient fiction—invoked when power needs to be asserted, not restrained. And history tells us such theatrics rarely end where they begin: actions meant to project strength often spiral into overreach, engendering resentment and long-term damage to public trust.
Yes, America has called in the Guard before—1968 after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and Hurricane Katrina—but those were genuine emergencies. History also shows the risks: the fatal shootings at Kent State in 1970, the chaos of the 1971 Attica prison uprising, and the aggressive federal deployments in Portland in 2020 all eroded public trust and inflamed tensions rather than calming them. Using troops to serve a political storyline rather than public safety isn’t just unnecessary—it’s dangerous. Once leaders see the PR value of soldiers in the streets, the tactic becomes a habit, and habits in this arena are hard to reverse.
The Bigger Picture
What’s happening in Washington is a template. If a president can declare a security crisis in the safest D.C. in decades, he can do the same in Chicago, San Francisco, or any city run by his political adversaries. The precedent is clear: local authority is conditional, and federal force is on the table whenever it suits the president’s agenda. In a polarized nation, that precedent all but guarantees such power will be used for partisan purposes.
This is how “law and order” becomes “command and control.” Troops on city streets aren’t just about security—they’re a statement about where power resides. Once the public grows used to that image, the exceptional becomes routine, and local governments find themselves bypassed not just in matters of policing, but in a wide range of policy decisions. The symbolic power of soldiers in public squares reshapes how citizens view authority itself—less as a shared civic structure, more as a top-down command chain.
Public safety matters. But militarizing cities when the facts don’t warrant it erodes democracy while doing little to make anyone safer. In our constitutional system, the president is not a mayor-in-chief. Treating cities as occupied territory turns them into political props, strips away civil liberties, and normalizes the use of force in political disputes. A public accustomed to this image may not notice the erosion of rights until they are already gone.
If Washington is the first stage for this kind of governance, it won’t be the last. And by the time we notice the guardrails are gone, the troops will already be on our streets—this time, perhaps, with even less reason to be there than before.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Democrat Donkey phone operator
AI illustration
Democrats Need To Focus on Communication
Aug 17, 2025
The Democrats have a problem…I realize this isn’t a revelation, but I believe they’re boxed into a corner with limited options to regain their footing. Don’t get me wrong, the party could have a big win in the 2026 midterms with a backlash building against Trump and MAGA. In some scenarios, that could also lead to taking back the White House in 2028…but therein lies the problem.
In its second term, the Trump administration has severely cut government agencies, expanded the power of the Executive branch, enacted policies that will bloat the federal deficit, dismantled parts of the social safety net, weakened our standing in the world, and moved the US closer to a “pay for play” transactional philosophy of operating government that’s usually reserved for Third World countries. America has veered away from being the model emulated by other nations that aim to build a stable democracy.
Whichever party takes the White House in 2028, there will be a need for spending and taxes to rebuild essential government functions, to re-establish critical research initiatives, to restore staffing levels at agencies like the IRS, NOAA, EPA, CFPB, USAID, and others to enable them to operate as chartered by Congress. Rebuilding takes time. In fact, it takes a lot longer to rebuild than to dismantle. This process will require patience to have a discernible effect, and the American public has often demonstrated that it doesn’t have a tolerance for that. So, if it plays out that a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, the party will need to figure out how to communicate where we are as a nation, what’s important to rebuild the foundation that has guided us for 250 years, what to expect along the way, and why we all must have patience as we go through the process.
While execution will be important, success at winning the hearts and minds of the American people will boil down to communication. The Democrats have had a communication problem for decades. Republicans have proven far more effective than Democrats at delivering unified, consistent messaging across their party. For example, Biden does things post-pandemic to move the country forward and is blamed for inflation; Trump does things in his second term that are inflationary, and his supporters accept that there will be a period of “disruption” that may (or may not) lead to a long-term benefit. There are many examples, but suffice it to say that the Democrats have struggled to get their message out in a consistent fashion for a long time.
Now, fast-forward to 2028…Assuming there will ultimately be a broad backlash to the Trump presidency and that a Democrat is elected to the White House in 2028, they will be faced with a federal workforce that has been decimated. There will be a need to rebuild some functions, and that will come with a cost…which feeds into the timeworn mantra that Democrats want to tax-and-spend while Republicans are fiscally responsible.
The challenge is that you can’t simply switch on and off initiatives like biotech research and international development. These types of things are being set back decades; the brain drain takes its toll.
On top of the sheer volume of agencies that would need to be rebuilt, any new administration will have difficulty attracting top talent into federal positions with the knowledge that their jobs could be eliminated at the whim of a change in future administrations. The philosophical shift operates counter to the implicit deal that was in place for decades for federal workers.
By the end of its second term, the Trump administration will have expanded the power and reach of the Executive Branch. By following the Project 2025 roadmap, and with the help of the Supreme Court, they will have advanced the “Unitary” theory of the Executive–to what extent is to be determined, but it’s already happening. Even with the anticipated backlash against Trumpism, the Democrats will be in a tough position to rebuild without reinforcing hackneyed accusations about big government and big spending. Coupled with the time that will be needed to rebuild, the end result could be a win in 2028, followed by a boomerang backlash against the Democrats, leading to a return of Republicans to the White House in 2032. To avert this, Democrats must do a better job communicating their vision and the shortcomings of the other side. That unified, cohesive messaging needs to start NOW…leading up to the midterms and continuing into the 2028 campaign. To illustrate, here are the types of foundational issues that the Democratic party will need to saturate the advertising and social media channels with:
● Essential Services: Republicans have eliminated essential services, reduced scientific research, and weakened the safety net programs that millions of people rely upon.
● Taxes: Republicans have enacted tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy and leave the working class behind.
● National Debt: Republicans have demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility through massive budget deficits that will be an anchor on our economic well-being in the coming decades.
● Checks-and-Balances: The current administration has taken us on a detour away from three coequal branches of government in favor of an all-powerful Executive Branch.
● International Leadership: Current policies have weakened the reputation of the US internationally and reduced our influence. We need to repair our standing as a beacon of democracy and hope throughout the world.
● Polarization: The current administration has worked to exacerbate the divisions within our people rather than celebrating the common beliefs that unite us.
The above list is not intended to be comprehensive, but is representative of the pointed, pervasive messaging that needs to be echoed up and down the Democratic party. While the foundational issues provide a North Star, the Democrats will need a clear message of what they would do in 2028 and why it’s desperately needed. They will need to run the 2028 campaign on specific issues that are both achievable and appealing to the general electorate. And if they win in 2028, they’ll need to have delivered on many of those promises to win again in 2032. Conversely, if the 2028 campaign is based on pie-in-the-sky hopes and platitudes, they will inevitably fall short and will be penalized in the long term.
The path for the Democrats to regain the trust of the American people is a difficult one. It starts with persuasive communication, in one voice, using consistent language, that emphasizes the common principles inherent in our country’s DNA. Be honest with the voters about what’s achievable and what it will take to get there. Execute the plan effectively…Rinse…Repeat.
Alan J. Simon is a technology consultant and a contributing author of “Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework.”
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More