In a stark display of governmental contradiction, we are witnessing the self-proclaimed defenders of free speech actively working to criminalize constitutionally protected expression. Just weeks after President Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” his administration began threatening to prosecute journalists and citizens for engaging in basic public discourse about government employees.

The implications raise deep press freedom concerns, as we saw when WIRED published an article naming six young engineers hired by Musk to work for DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), and Musk declared to the reporters, “You have committed a crime.” This is a striking statement from Musk—a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist” who has repeatedly advocated for complete government transparency. The same person who, just three months ago, had no qualms about publicly posting the names of government employees he disagreed with on X.

U.S. Attorney for D.C. Edward R. Martin Jr. escalated this threat, promising to pursue “all legal action against anyone who impedes [Musk’s] work or threatens [Musk’s] people.” This isn’t just wrong—it’s an unconstitutional stance that threatens the work of journalists, authors, and anyone documenting how our government operates. And when Martin declares that “actions in any way that impact [DOGE’s] work may break numerous laws,” he creates a deliberately vague threat that could force writers to self-censor out of fear their work might be interpreted as “impeding” government operations.

What makes this particularly alarming is that DOGE was established to handle only “unclassified agency records,” but is threatening criminal prosecution for reporting that these new, young (between 19 and 23 years old) public employees potentially have access to unclassified records. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that publishing newsworthy information about government employees is protected speech, period.

This isn’t just about protecting journalists or whistleblowers—though that would be reason enough. This prevents the government from selectively enforcing “free speech” protections against journalists and authors based on whether the speech serves its interests. When the government claims the power to criminalize truthful reporting about its employees, it’s not just an attack on journalism—it’s an attack on the fundamental ability to tell important stories about how power operates in America.

A broad coalition of organizations—including the Authors Guild and the Society of Professional Journalists—joined Demand Progress Education Fund and Freedom of the Press Foundation in a letter to the new D.C. U.S. Attorney to challenge those threats. Democracy depends on the freedom of the press to write about government and politics as well as clear First Amendment protections against government censorship of factual information.

Let’s be clear: It is not a crime for writers to identify public employees doing public work, to criticize government initiatives, or to question the wisdom of providing mysterious (in meetings they would not introduce themselves), new, and wildly inexperienced employees who lack security clearance access to sensitive government systems. 

This kind of reporting is exactly what journalists should be doing: holding government officials accountable to the people who elected them. It is why the First Amendment’s freedom of the press and freedom of speech are fundamental rights in a democracy: The government must be held accountable.

This is the very law that Musk and the Trump administration regularly claim to defend, such as in the Executive Order, Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship, which, in the name of free speech, prohibits government action meant to reduce the spread of harmful disinformation and misinformation. 

The American people deserve better than this doublespeak. We deserve leaders who don’t just protect the speech they like, even if intentionally deceptive, but who protect all speech — even when it is critical of their own actions. The future of political writing, investigative journalism, and historical documentation hangs in the balance.

Read the letter here (PDF).