I was born in a democracy. I have always lived with a free press, without censorship or fear. But the signs coming from the United States show that even the strongest freedoms can begin to crumble from within.
It is no secret that since the start of his new term in January 2025, the Trump Administration has adopted a hostile relationship with the independent press. One of its first moves was to freeze 268 million dollars previously approved by Congress to fund USAID, the agency that supported non-state media and provided training for journalists in several countries.
Shortly after, Trump threatened investigative journalism by suggesting the creation of a law that would punish reporters who used anonymous sources. A month after the inauguration, press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the White House would begin selecting which media outlets would be allowed to cover the president’s agenda.
But the threats to press freedom didn’t stop there. In May 2025, journalists lost their unrestricted access to the Pentagon. From then on, they were required to request authorization and be escorted whenever moving inside the building. Areas that had long been open to the press became completely off-limits. Now, journalists are confined to the cafeteria and the courtyard.
More recently, Donald Trump threatened to revoke the licenses of radio and television networks critical of his government, a move that led ABC, owned by Disney, to temporarily suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! (fortunately, only for six days, after strong pressure from the public and advertisers), following the earlier cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
And just as we were still processing these successive offensives against press freedom by the Trump Administration, the newly renamed U.S. Department of War (formerly the Department of Defense) implemented an unprecedented policy: all accredited journalists are now required to submit any information related to the armed forces for government approval before publication, regardless of whether the material is classified or not.
This measure, communicated through a 17-page memorandum dated September 19, represents the most severe attack on press freedom in U.S. military coverage in decades. The document states that “information must be approved for public release by an authorized official prior to publication, even if not classified.” The rule also applies to information obtained from anonymous sources outside official channels, a clear attempt to exert total control over the military narrative, something unseen for generations.
Even in 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg, a Pentagon employee, handed over the now-famous Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, exposing U.S. political and military involvement in the Vietnam War, the outcome was different. Despite the Nixon administration’s attempt to block publication, the Supreme Court ruled the censorship unconstitutional, reaffirming press freedom. Today, with a far more conservative Supreme Court, it is legitimate to question whether it would rule the same way.
Failure to comply with this new policy is an explicit reason for the withdrawal of press credentials. Around 90 journalists covering the Pentagon were asked to sign a ten-page agreement accepting these restrictions under penalty of losing access to military facilities.
The media’s reaction
So far, none of the major American or international outlets have signed the document imposed by the Pentagon. ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC, The New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, AFP, and others have publicly rejected the restrictions, stating that they will not comply.
To sign such a document would mean giving up the freedom of the press guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, something incompatible with the journalistic mission and democratic responsibility of any news organization. Even traditionally conservative outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, and The Washington Times have refused to comply.
The National Press Club of Washington, through its president Mike Balsamo, strongly condemned the policy: “If reporting on our armed forces must be approved by the government first, the public will no longer get independent information. They’ll only see what officials want them to see. This should alarm every American.”
The Society of Professional Journalists called the measure “alarming”, stating that “this policy reeks of prior restraint, the most blatant violation of press freedom under the First Amendment.”
In force since 1791, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. This decision therefore represents a direct attack on the foundations of American democracy, threatening institutional transparency.
Several analysts warn that imposing prior censorship creates a dangerous precedent: if the measure stands, it could redefine the relationship between government and the press in the United States, restricting society’s access to free and reliable information. And when the press is weakened, democratic accountability weakens too.
Independent organizations have been pushing for the policy’s repeal, while many journalists fear that this decision is only the beginning of an institutionalized control of information, another step toward limiting freedom of expression.
In a country that has long prided itself on being a guardian of liberty, requiring government approval before publishing military coverage may be leading the United States to undermine one of the very pillars of its own democracy.
A personal reflection
I was born in democracy. I’ve never known any other way of living but in freedom — freedom of expression, of thought, and of the press. That’s why I look at what’s happening in the United States with unease. History teaches us that freedom is not lost overnight: it erodes, its limits become normalized, its constraints accepted. What seems like an exception today can become the rule tomorrow. And if a country that has long presented itself as the bastion of liberty begins to tolerate censorship, how can we believe that the rest of the democratic world will remain immune? Perhaps we are indeed witnessing the end of an era — the era when press freedom was a universal value, not merely an aspiration.
Alexandra Peixinho Abreu, Director of Communications at CATÓLICA-LISBON