The week in free expression: 17–23 May 2025

In the age of online information, it can feel harder than ever to stay informed. As we get bombarded with news from all angles, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the arrest of a human rights lawyer and how Russia has banned Amnesty International.

Detained for her work: Leading human rights lawyer arrested for supporting immigrants

Cristosal is one of the most prominent groups working to defend human rights in Central America. Over recent months, it has supported those wrongfully deported to El Salvador from the USA, and now one of its most prominent figures is paying the price for this work. Ruth López, chief legal officer in anti-corruption for Cristosal, has been arrested in El Salvador over a decade-old embezzlement accusation from when she worked in electoral courts.

Arrested late on Sunday 18 May, her family and legal team have no knowledge as to her whereabouts and are concerned about her safety. Numerous human rights organisations have come out in her defence, condemning her arrest as a violation of due process, and outlining the “environment of fear” that is prevalent in the country.

Cristosal wrote on Bluesky that Lopez is “likely the victim of short-term enforced disappearance”, constituting a “serious human rights violation under international law”. López has led multiple legal cases against the Salvadoran government, and Cristosal claims that she has been the target of smear campaigns and social media attacks coordinated by Nayib Bukele’s government, and that this is its latest attempt to silence her for her work.

No amnesty for Amnesty: Prominent human rights group banned in Russia

On Monday 19 May, Russia officially announced that it would ban the prominent human rights organisation Amnesty International from operating within the country, designating it “undesirable”. The Kremlin claims that Amnesty is the “centre of preparation of global Russophobic projects”, and that it “[justifies] the crimes of Ukrainian neo-Nazis”.

Amnesty has continually documented Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, and the organisation has long been on Russia’s blacklist, with its website blocked and its Moscow office closed since the early days of the war. The group is far from the first to be banned by the Kremlin; since 2015 the register of “undesirable organisations” has been used to ostracise hundreds of human rights groups and media outlets. Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard said that “you must be doing something right if the Kremlin bans you”, and outlined the organisation’s intentions to keep exposing Russia’s human rights violations in both Ukraine and Russia.

University protests: Student has degree revoked for pro-Palestine speech

Since Donald Trump was inaugurated in January, university campuses have become key battlegrounds in the fight for free expression in the USA. Some pro-Palestine protesters have been arrested on campus, others have been punished through suspension, and the Trump administration has threatened to withdraw funding from schools and universities that allow what it deems “illegal protests”. International students are at particular risk, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have detained and attempted deportations of student protesters who are in the USA on visas or green cards.

Despite the threats facing them, it appears that students are not being deterred from protesting. New York University (NYU) undergraduate Logan Rozos gave a pro-Palestine speech at his graduation ceremony last week, condemning the war in Gaza. ​​“The genocide currently occurring is supported politically and military by the United States, is paid for by our tax dollars and has been live-streamed to our phones,” he said. NYU quickly announced that the university is withholding his diploma while it pursues disciplinary action against him.

Similarly, this week, George Washington University (GWU) student Cecilia Culver criticised her university’s ties to Israel and called for students to withhold donations to GWU in a graduation speech that went viral on social media. She has since been banned from campus, with some groups calling for the withdrawal of her diploma until she apologises.

In February it was announced that a federal government taskforce set up to tackle antisemitism would be investigating events that have occurred at 10 universities, and both NYU and GWU are on this list. 

Media shutdown: Taliban fires 300 from national broadcaster in mass budget cuts

As part of an initiative to cut government spending, the Taliban has fired more than 300 members of staff from the prominent national broadcaster Radio Television of Afghanistan (RTA), 91 of whom are women. Many were journalists and editors who had worked for the organisation for decades. The Afghanistan Journalists Support Organization (AJSO) believes that this is more than just a cost-cutting exercise.

In a statement on X, AJSO outlined how this continues a theme of media suppression by the Taliban, and that the decision is part of “the systematic exclusion of women from the public sphere, especially in the media”. The drive to remove women from the workplace has intensified since the Taliban regained control of the country in 2021; state-run nurseries in Kabul have reportedly seen more than 100 female staff dismissed, while hundreds of women professors have been fired from public universities across the country. At the end of last year, women were banned from training as midwives and nurses.

A 2024 UN report also outlined how the Taliban has devastated the country’s independent media landscape, with the latest cuts appearing to be a continuation of these efforts.

Freed on demand: Two activists released from detention in Tanzania following government requests

Boniface Mwangi, a prominent Kenyan activist and journalist, and Ugandan activist Agather Atuhaire have reportedly been returned to their home countries following a three-day detention in Tanzania.  Mwangi and Atuhaire were in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on Monday 19 May for the court case of Tanzanian opposition leader Tundu Lissu when they were arrested. They were taken into custody, with their whereabouts unknown, and allegedly denied access or contact with either their lawyers or families.

The Kenyan government publicly protested the detention, calling on Tanzania to release Mwangi in an open letter on Thursday 22 May – later that day, Mwangi was dumped on the border of Kenya and Tanzania. Mwangi has recounted his experiences in detention, claiming that he and Atuhaire were tortured while in custody. Atuhaire was also found at the border of Tanzania and Uganda, after the Ugandan High Commission wrote to Tanzania seeking information about her whereabouts. Amnesty Kenya has condemned their detentions, and has called for an independent investigation into the allegations of torture and human rights abuses by Tanzanian officials.

In Mexico and Honduras, state agents target journalists while governments claim to protect them

This article was commissioned and first published by The Conversation – the news, science and arts website written entirely by academics. You can read the original version here.

Humberto Padgett was reporting on the effects of drought in Cuitzeo, a rural area of central Mexico, when his car was intercepted by armed men on September 13 2024. They threatened him and stole the car, his identity papers and work equipment, including two bullet-proof jackets.

Padgett, a Mexican investigative journalist and author, was reporting on Mexico’s growing environmental worries for national talk radio station Radio Fórmula. It proved to be his last assignment for the station. Two days later, he tweeted:

“Today I’m leaving journalism indefinitely. The losses I’ve suffered, the harassment and threats my family and I have endured, and the neglect I’ve faced have forced me to give up after 26 years of work. Thank you and good luck.”

Padgett made this decision despite the fact he, like many other journalists in Mexico, has been enrolled in a government protection scheme for years – the Protection Mechanism for Journalists and Human Rights Defenders, set up in 2012. Several other Latin American countries have similar protection programmes, including Honduras since 2015.

These programmes offer journalists measures such as panic buttons and emergency phone alerts, police or private security patrols, and security cameras and alarm systems for their homes and offices. Some are provided with bodyguards – at times, Padgett has received 24-hour protection.

In Honduras, reporter Wendy Funes, founder of the online news site RI, was given a police bodyguard after being threatened while covering an extortion trial that linked the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), an international criminal gang, with the Honduran government of former president Juan Orlando Hernández, who is now serving a 45-year prison sentence in the US for drug trafficking and arms offences.

Yet even once journalists are enrolled in these government protection schemes, the attacks and threats continue. Shockingly, many come from state employees who, in both Mexico and Honduras, are thought to be responsible for almost half of all attacks on journalists. But the prospect of punishment is remote: at least 90% of attacks on journalists go unprosecuted and unpunished, meaning there is little deterrent for committing these crimes.

Both Mexico and Honduras currently have leftwing governments which have promised to protect journalists, following a long history of crimes against media professionals in both countries. Yet the risk to journalists posed by the state has worsened in recent years amid increasing use of spyware, online smear campaigns, and rising levels of anti-media rhetoric.

Journalists perceived as critical of the leadership are regularly accused of being corrupt, in the pay of foreign governments, and putting out fake news. Donald Trump’s vocal criticism of mainstream media since returning to power in the US is likely to have encouraged this anti-media hostility in Mexico and Honduras, as elsewhere in the world.

Many journalists there have developed strategies for self-protection, including setting up NGOs that support colleagues at risk. But while they are doing journalism in ways that make reporting safer, their work has been further threatened by the abrupt suspension of USAID and other US grants, which is heightening the dangers faced by journalists in Latin America and around the world.

Threats from the state

When I tell people about my research into how journalists in Latin America deal with the relentless violence and impunity, their first question is usually: “Oh, you mean drug cartels?” And indeed, both Padgett and Funes have received death threats for their investigations into cartels and other organised crime groups.

Padgett was once sent an unsolicited photo of a dismembered body in a morgue. He was beaten and kicked in the head by armed men who threatened to kill him and his family while he was reporting on drug dealing on a university campus in Mexico City in 2017. He wears a bullet-proof jacket – or did until it was stolen – and keeps his home address a closely guarded secret.

But cartels and gangs are only part of the story when it comes to anti-press violence and impunity in these countries. In many ways, the bigger story is the threat from the state. This has been a constant despite changes in government, whether right or left wing.

My research project and resulting book were inspired by my work providing advocacy, practical and moral support for journalists at risk in Latin America for an international NGO between 2007 and 2016. The extent of the risk posed by state agents – acting alone or in cahoots with organised crime groups – is clear from the many journalists I’ve spoken to in both Mexico and Honduras.

I first interviewed these reporters, and the organisations that assist them, in 2018, then again in 2022-23 (89 interviews in total), to chart how journalists struggle for protection and justice from the state in the face of growing challenges at both domestic and international level.

For both Padgett and Funes, the intimidation, threats and attacks from organised crime groups often followed them reporting on state agents and their alleged links with such groups. Organised crime groups have deeply infiltrated the fabric of society in many parts of Mexico and Honduras – including politics, state institutions, justice and law enforcement, particularly at a local level.

In Padgett’s case, the suspected cartel threats came after he published a book and investigation into links between state governments and drug cartels, including drug money for political campaigns in Tamaulipas and a surge in cartel-related violence in Morelos under a certain local administration.

Padgett had first joined the federal protection mechanism after he was attacked by police when filming a raid in central Mexico City in 2016. The police confiscated his phone and arrested him.

He was later assigned an around-the-clock bodyguard after the Mexico City prosecutor’s office made available his contact details and his risk assessment and protection plan – produced by the state programme that was supposed to safeguard him – for inclusion in the court file on the 2017 attack on him at the university. This meant the criminals behind the attack had full access to this information.

Being part of this protection programme did not stop the threats by state employees. In April 2024, while trying to report from the scene of the murder of a local mayoral candidate in Guanajuato state, Padgett was punched in the face by a police officer from the state prosecutor’s office, who also smashed his glasses and deleted his photos.

Years earlier, he had been subjected to a protracted legal battle by former Mexico state governor and presidential candidate Eruviel Ávila Villegas, who sued Padgett for “moral damages” to the tune of more than half a million US dollars. His offence? A 2017 profile which mentioned that the politician had attended parties where a bishop had sexually abused male minors.

Padgett eventually won the case – but only on appeal, thanks to a pro bono legal team, after 18 months of stress and travelling to attend the hearings. This is a part of a growing trend of “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (Slapps) in Mexico and Latin America, aimed at silencing journalists and other critical voices.

As Padgett put it: “[Even] once we manage to win, there are no consequences for the politicians who call us to a trial without merit – no consequences at all. Eruviel Ávila is still a senator for the PRI [Institutional Revolutionary Party]” – and he was not even liable for costs.

Mexico’s federal government and army have also carried out illegal surveillance of the mobile phones of journalists and human rights defenders investigating federal government corruption and serious human rights violations on multiple occasions, including by using Pegasus spyware.

In Honduras, Funes is no stranger to state harassment either. In 2011, she was among around 100 journalists, many of them women, who were teargassed and beaten with truncheons by officers of the presidential guard and the national police during a peaceful protest against journalist murders.

In recent years, according to Funes, she and her team at RI have been targeted by cyberattacks and orchestrated smear campaigns on social media that have sought to tar them as being corrupt or associated with criminal gangs. She suspects the army is behind some of these attacks since RI has written in favour of demilitarising the police. Several RI team members have been stopped at army checkpoints; when they have denounced this on TikTok or Facebook, they have been flooded by negative comments.

RI has also been attacked by government supporters unhappy with its critical coverage of the Honduras president Xiomara Castro’s leftwing administration. In August 2024, Funes was threatened with prosecution by the governor of Choluteca, southern Honduras, over RI’s investigation into alleged involvement by local government officials in migrant trafficking. And earlier in 2025, Funes and a human rights activist were subjected to misogynistic and sexist diatribes and threats by the head of customs for the same regional department, for demanding justice for a murdered environmental defender.

Almost half of all attacks on journalists in Mexico and Honduras are attributable to state agents, particularly at the local level. In Mexico, the NGO Article 19 has attributed 46% of all such assaults over the last decade to state agents including officials, civil servants and the armed forces.

In Honduras, according to the Committee for Free Expression (C-Libre), 45% of attacks on journalists in the first quarter of 2024 were attributed to state agents, up from 41% in 2021. These include the national police, the Military Public Order Police, officials and members of the government.

Impunity is a fact of life

One key reason for the failure of the journalist protection schemes in Mexico and Honduras is they lack the power to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the attacks that caused the journalists to enter the programmes in the first place.

Padgett is yet to see justice, either for the attack on him by drug dealers at the university campus almost eight years ago or the results of the official investigation into the Mexico City prosecutor office’s apparent leaking of his contact details to the assailants. When he asked the prosecutor’s office for an update on its investigation in June 2024, he was told it had been closed two years earlier. His request for a copy of the file was denied.

When he went to the office to ask why, he was detained by police officers. “This is justice in Mexico City,” he said in a video he filmed during his arrest, adding:

“Drug dealing is allowed. My personal data is leaked to the organised crime [group] that threatened to kill me and my family. Then the matter is shelved. I come to ask for my file and instead of giving it to me, they take me to court. That is the reality today.”

Padgett lodged a complaint and, following “a tortuous judicial process”, eventually managed to get the investigation re-opened. But he says he has lost hope in the process and the justice system in general. Even something as simple as filing a report on the theft of his bullet-proof jacket during the armed attack in September 2024 has proved beyond the official responsible for the task, so the protection programme has not replaced it.

Funes says she reported one of the cyber-attacks on RI to the special prosecutor established by Honduras in 2018 to investigate crimes against journalists and human rights defenders. Funes provided the name and mobile phone number used by the hacker. However, she said the case was later closed for “lack of merit”.

Previously, the official investigation into the 2011 attack on her and other women journalists had also been quietly shelved after the evidence was “lost”. Funes says this put her off reporting subsequent incidents to the authorities:

“What for? I just want them to protect me … why waste my time? Really, you get used to impunity, you normalise it.”

There have been a few important advances in Mexico in recent years, including the successful prosecution of some of those behind the 2017 murder of two high-profile journalists, Javier Valdez and Miroslava Breach, but such cases remain the exception. Around 90% of attacks on journalists still go unprosecuted and unpunished by the state in both Mexico and Honduras, meaning there is little deterrent against these crimes.

Safer, better ways of working

Many of the journalists I have interviewed prioritise covering under-reported issues relating to human rights and democracy, corruption, violence and impunity. They use in-depth, investigative journalism to try to reveal the truth about what is happening in their countries – which is often obscured by the failings and corruption of the justice system and rule of law.

Many are developing safer, better ways of working, with three strategies having grown noticeably in recent years: building collaborations, seeking international support, and professionalising their ways of working.

Journalists from different media outlets often overcome professional rivalries to collaborate on sensitive and dangerous stories. In Mexico, members of some journalists’ collectives and networks alert each other of security risks on the ground, share and corroborate information, and monitor their members during risky assignments. Others travel as a group – when investigating the mass graves used by drug cartels, for example.

In Mexico and increasingly in Honduras, they publish controversial stories, such as on serious human rights violations involving the state, in more than one outlet simultaneously to reduce the chance of individual journalists being targeted in reprisal. Such collaborations build trust, solidarity and mutual support among reporters and editors – something that has traditionally been lacking in both countries.

Increasingly, international media partners also play an important role regarding the safety of Mexican and Honduran journalists and amplifying public awareness of the issues they report on – encouraging the mainstream media in their own countries to take notice and increasing pressure on their governments to act.

According to Jennifer Ávila, director of the Honduran investigative journalism platform ContraCorriente, transnational collaborations are a “super-important protection mechanism” because they give journalists access to external editors and legal assistance – as well as help leaving the country if necessary.

International partners also bring increased resources. In Mexico and Honduras, as in other Latin American countries, the main source of funding is government advertising and other state financial incentives. But these come with expectations about influence over editorial policies and content, so are not an option for most independent outlets. Private advertising is also challenging for these and other reasons. So, most independent media outlets and journalistic projects are heavily dependent on US and European donors such as the National Endowment for Democracy (Ned), Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations.

Much of Latin America has high levels of media concentration, with the mainstream media typically being owned by a handful of wealthy individuals or families with wider business interests – and close economic and political links to politicians and the state. Combined with the strings of government advertising, this often results in “soft” censorship of the content that these outlets publish. Some journalists are escaping this either by setting up their own media digital outlets, like Funes, or by going freelance – as Padgett has decided to do following the attack on him in Cuitzeo in 2024.

At the same time, there has been a widespread raising of standards through increased training in techniques such as journalistic ethics, making freedom of information requests, digital and investigative journalism, and covering elections. This all helps to promote “journalistic security” – using information as a “shield in such a way that no one can deny what you’re saying”, according to Daniela Pastrana of the NGO Journalists on the Ground (PdP). It also helps counter the perception – and in some cases, reality – of longstanding corruption in parts of the profession.

Hostile environment puts progress at risk

Despite the promise of transforming journalism through increasing collaboration, professionalisation and international support, the current outlook for journalists in Mexico and Honduras – and other countries in Latin America – is not encouraging. Hostile government rhetoric against independent reporters and media outlets is on the rise, despite the presidents of both Mexico and Honduras having pledged to protect journalists and freedom of expression.

In Honduras, the hostile rhetoric towards journalists is growing in the run-up to the presidential elections in November. According to Funes: “There is a violent public discourse from the government which is repeated by officials [and] prepares the ground for worse attacks on the press … This is dangerous.”

In both countries, such attitudes at the top are often replicated by local politicians and citizens, including online, with the threat of violent discourse leading to physical violence. This hostility appears likely to grow given the example of Donald Trump’s aggressive and litigious attitude towards journalists and the media in the United States.

Indeed, the policies of the second Trump administration are already jeopardising progress made in terms of transforming journalism in Mexico and Honduras. In late January 2025, the US government suspended international aid and shuttered USAID, amid unsubstantiated accusations of fraud and corruption.

According to the press freedom group Reporters Without Borders, the USAID freeze included more than US$268m (£216m) that had been allocated to support “independent media and the free flow of information” in 2025.

USAID has been a key funder of organisations such as the nonprofits Internews and Freedom House, which in turn have been vital to the development of independent and investigative journalism in Latin America through their support of new media outlets, journalistic projects and media freedom groups. Another important donor, Ned – a bipartisan nonprofit organisation largely funded by the US Congress – has had its funding frozen.

Uncertainty about future funding has led to the immediate suspension of operations and layoffs by many nonprofit media organisations in Mexico, Honduras and across the region. While this seismic shift in the Latin American media landscape reinforces the urgent need to diversify its sources of funding, there is no doubt that in the short and even medium term, it has dealt a serious blow to the development of free and independent journalism and the safety of all journalists.

In a region of increasingly authoritarian leaders, it is now a lot harder to hold them accountable for corruption, human rights violations, impunity and other abuses.

International impotence

Anti-press violence and impunity are global problems, with more than 1,700 journalists killed worldwide between 2006 and 2024 – around 85% of which went unpunished, according to Unesco.

Although international organisations, protection mechanisms and pressure can be important tools in the fight against anti-press violence and impunity, they are ultimately limited in impact due to their reliance on the state to comply. Some journalists in Mexico and Honduras suggest the impact of such international attention can even be counter-productive, due to their governments’ increasing hostility toward any criticism by international organisations, journalists and other perceived opponents.

Twenty years ago, Lydia Cacho, a renowned journalist and women’s rights activist, was arbitrarily detained and tortured in Puebla state, east-central Mexico, after publishing a book exposing a corruption and child sexual exploitation network involving authorities and well-known businessmen. Unable to get redress for her torture through the Mexican justice system, Cacho eventually took her case to the United Nations.

Finally, in 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that her rights had been violated and ordered the Mexican state to re-open the investigation into the attack, and to give her adequate compensation. This judgment has led to several arrests of state agents in Puebla, including a former governor and chief of the judicial police and several police officers, as well as a public apology from the federal government.

But cases like Cacho’s are the exception. Securing rulings from international bodies requires resources and energy, the help of NGOs or lawyers – and can take years. What’s more, enforcement of international decisions relies on the state to comply.

While international pressure was key to persuading the Mexican and Honduran states to set up their government protection schemes for journalists and specialised prosecutors to investigate attacks against them, these institutions have generally proved ineffective.

Resourcing is always an issue: typically, protection mechanisms and prosecutors’ offices are underfunded and the staff are poorly trained. Some bodies have limited mandates, such as protection mechanisms that lack the power to investigate attacks on journalists. Sometimes, these failings are believed to be deliberate. According to Padgett, the Mexican journalist protection scheme has “political biases against those whom officials consider to be hostile to the regime”.

Indeed, many journalists and support groups suspect the Mexican and Honduran governments don’t really want these institutions to work. As the pro-democracy judge Guillermo López Lone commented about the repeated failure to secure convictions for crimes against journalists and human rights defenders in Honduras: “These are international commitments [made] due to pressure, but there is no political will.”

López Lone, who was illegally removed from his position after the 2009 coup in Honduras and only reinstated as a judge after a years-long struggle, including a ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, alleged that these institutions “play a merely formal role” in Honduras, because they have been “captured by the political interests of the current rulers, and by criminal networks”.

Similarly, according to Sara Mendiola, director of Mexico City-based NGO Propuesta Cívica, it’s not enough to talk about a lack of resources or training: “Even if you doubled the [state] prosecutors’ offices’ budgets, you’d still have the same impunity because the structures [that generate impunity] remain.”

Activism is a risky business

It’s clear that in both Mexico and Honduras, despite the governments’ stated commitment to freedom of expression, there is a deep-seated ambivalence about how important or desirable it is to protect journalists and media freedom.

The heart of this issue is the contradiction of the state as both protector and perpetrator – a state that does not want to, or is incapable of, constraining or investigating itself and its allies. This in turn is linked to longstanding structural problems of corruption, impunity and human rights violations, and a legacy of controlling the media dating to pre-democracy days.

Activism by journalists against this situation – another form of self-protection – takes various forms, including public protests and advocacy, and working for and setting up NGOs that support colleagues at risk. Increasingly, activism also involves the coming together of those who are the victims of violence.

In Mexico City, groups of journalists displaced from their homes by threats and attacks, many of whom end up without a job or income, have formed collectives and networks to provide mutual support and assist colleagues in similar circumstances. In Veracruz state, the Network in Memory of and Struggle for Killed and Disappeared Journalists was formed by the relatives of the many such journalists in 2022.

But activism is a risky business in Mexico and Honduras, opening journalists and their loved ones up to further repression and attacks by the state – and sometimes raising questions about their impartiality and credibility. While many journalists have taken part in activism out of necessity or desperation, in both countries their main source of optimism in the face of violence and impunity is journalism itself.

Journalism as the solution

Fortunately, journalists like Padgett don’t give up easily. After an eight-month hiatus following the attack in Cuitzeo and its aftermath, he now feels ready to go back to reporting.

Although he succeeded in getting the shelved investigation into the 2017 attack on him and subsequent data leak reopened, the lack of any action since means he’s decided to draw a line under this labyrinthine process. He is now looking for “alternative means of justice to compensate for the impunity”.

As a part of the reparations, he has been promised a formal apology from the Mexico City Prosecutor’s Office (similar to the apology received by Cacho). Such a ceremony is not justice and may largely be symbolic, but Padgett feels it will allow him to move on and focus on journalism again – this time as a freelancer. He is keen to make the point that Mexico remains “an extraordinary place to be a reporter”.

Despite the lack of state protection and all the other challenges, journalists like Padgett and Funes are determined to keep going – investigating their countries’ ills, probing the root causes, transforming their profession. Their commitment offers a ray of hope for the emergence of a truly free and independent media in Mexico, Honduras and beyond.

Tamsin Mitchell’s new book, Human Rights, Impunity and Anti-Press Violence: How Journalists Survive and Resist, is published by Routledge.

World Press Freedom Day 2025: Journalists reflect

Tomorrow marks World Press Freedom Day, a day started in 1993 to remind governments of their duty to protect freedom of the press. This year, the need for this reminder feels more urgent than ever. 

In the USA, President Donald Trump has been in office for just over 100 days and already we’ve witnessed attempts to attack independent media and dismantle press freedom. Since the beginning of his second term in office, Index has reported on Trump’s war on truth, on the devastating implications on journalism his cuts to the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) entities including Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) will have, and how he’s worked to remove critical media from the White House.  

Within this context, on World Press Freedom Day, Index has called upon its contributors from around the world, working in countries where they fight for press freedom every day, to reflect on what it means to them and why it is so important we defend it.

SOMALIA
Hinda Abdi Mohamoud, chief editor at Bilan Media 

“As a journalist and the chief editor of Bilan Media, the only all-women newsroom in Somalia, I know that press freedom isn’t just important – it’s essential to our survival and our work. In a place where speaking the truth can be dangerous, where women’s voices have long been silenced or sidelined, press freedom is the tool that allows us to challenge injustice, elevate unheard stories, and advocate for real change. 

That’s why organisations like Index on Censorship are so vital. They support journalists who risk their safety to ensure the truth is told. They defend journalists’ right to report and protect the public’s right to know.”

TURKEY
Nedim Türfent, journalist 

“Freedom of the press is, above all, the first bastion we must defend for the sake of all our other rights and freedoms. Ultimately, in a time and place where the press is not free, it becomes impossible to make our demands for rights visible, known, and heard. If we do not want our rights and freedoms to be dismantled piece by piece, we must be unwavering defenders of press freedom.

The fight for press freedom by international organisations is essential to ensure that the voices of journalists and media outlets facing oppression and persecution anywhere in the world are heard. This cross-border struggle also serves to prevent enemies of press freedom from casually and effortlessly exerting pressure on journalists – as if it were something ordinary. The louder and stronger the voice of international institutions, the more hesitation those enemies will have before violating the rights of journalists.

However, the heavy burden of this struggle should not rest solely on the shoulders of journalists and media organisations. We must remember: when the rights of even a single journalist are violated, the right of thousands of people to access information is also restricted. Shortly, in a world where press and freedom of expression are increasingly eroded, none of our rights or freedoms can be truly guaranteed. It’s that simple.”

AFGHANISTAN
Spozhmai Maani, journalist

“For me, press freedom is not just a principle, it is a lifeline for truth and justice, especially in places like Afghanistan where silence is often enforced with fear. As a journalist who fled persecution for simply telling the truth, I know firsthand how critical it is to protect the voices that hold power to account. Organisations like Index on Censorship are essential in this fight. They give strength, visibility, and protection to those of us who risk everything to speak out. In a world where even established democracies are seeing press freedom eroded, their work is more urgent than ever.”

INDIA
Salil Tripathi, contributing editor at Index on Censorship 

“We only have to look at closed societies from our past and present to know what life is like without press freedom. That some leaders and many people continue to believe in controlling the press – through laws, oligarchs, governments, and intimidation – shows what they are afraid of, and it shows why publications like Index on Censorship continue to matter.”

UGANDA
Danson Kahyana, contributing editor at Index on Censorship  

“Press freedom is the foundation of democracy – the press should be able to report on any matter of public importance without fear or favour. The moment press freedom is threatened, expect democracy to rot and die from within because nobody will be able to say, ‘Look – the emperor is naked!’ So nakedness (corruption, impunity, heavy-handedness, tyranny, etc.) will go unreported, thereby weakening institutions into comatose. In Uganda, we have seen this happen: The emperor called General Yoweri Museveni has gotten worse every year that passes. The more power he amasses by weakening institutions like the parliament and the judiciary the more naked he gets. It is because Ugandans have reported on his myriad abuses of power that the world has come to know that all along, he was a tyrant in democracy’s skin.

Because authoritarian regimes wield immense resources to punish critics as a means of stifling dissent, we need organisations like Index on Censorship to shine a light on tyrants’ assaults on freedom. Like witches and wizards, tyrants do their evil work in the safety of the dark. Index and other organisations like it remind the tyrants that someone is watching them, and that sooner than later, they will be held accountable for their misdeeds. In other words, Index and other organisations like it provide an archive of the tyrants’ atrocities that will be used against them in the courts of law. What is happening to former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte is a good example – the reports against him caught up with him.  Besides, by providing constant companionship and solidarity to journalists, Index and other organisations like it embolden the defenders of good governance and human rights in their castigation of impunity.”

BELARUS
Jana Paliashchuk, researcher

“While press freedom is a basic right in many countries, for millions of Belarusians it’s been denied for three decades under Aliaksandr Lukashenka’s dictatorship. Speaking out against repression often leads to prison – and journalists are hit hardest.

Today, 40 media workers are behind bars in Belarus for simply doing their jobs. Journalists like RFE/RL’s Ihar Losik and Belsat TV’s Katsiaryna Andreyeva. are serving harsh sentences and enduring torture behind bars. Other journalists were forced into exile, continuing their work from abroad, while Belarusians inside the country risk punishment just for reading independent news.

This may sound grim, but it’s the reality in Belarus, a European country. That’s why defending press freedom matters. It may seem like a solid foundation of society, but it’s as fragile as glass.”

Could Donald Trump’s administration be a double-edged sword for free speech?

The second Donald Trump administration isn’t even a month old, and yet it seems as though the divisive president has already produced enough headlines to get us to the next election. With sweeping executive orders, massive cuts to federal departments and sights set on the contentious purchase of foreign lands, it’s hard to currently decipher the impact of his decisions and statements on the American people, and globally.

This is particularly true when it comes to one of the foundations of the USA’s Bill of Rights – the right to free speech.

Since his inauguration, there have been accusations of censorship and free speech violations levelled at Trump and his office. His threat to deport students with VISAs who display pro-Palestine views has rung alarm bells, and after the 47th President was credited with the reinstatement of social media platform TikTok in the USA, there were user reports of censorship around criticism of Trump, or pro-Palestine sentiment. There have also been major causes for concern among the LGBTQ+ community as one of Trump’s new executive orders threatens the self determination and self expression of trans people. 

But is it all bad news when it comes to free speech? The USA-based non-profit organisation Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) keeps a close watch on how each president upholds freedom of speech according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Speaking to Index, members of FIRE’s legislative team explained how Trump’s first few weeks in office have impacted free speech in the USA, for better and worse.

Tyler Coward, lead counsel in higher education related government affairs at FIRE, has concerns about Trump’s threat against pro-Palestine foreign students. “There are mixed signals from some courts about what speech rights people have when they’re here on a temporary status, such as [on] visas, but FIRE’s position is that it’s a bad idea to create two classes of students on campus, some that can participate fully in campus advocacy or campus protests, and those who risk fear of deportation,” he said.

“There are students that can or have engaged in actual unlawful activity, including violence against other students, engaging in sanctionable civil disobedience, actual discrimination or intimidation, things that are generally not protected by the First Amendment,” he continued. “But we think it’s a bad idea to create a system where speech that would be protected for an American student, wouldn’t be for a student on a student visa.”

However, Coward believes that if Trump abides by the precedent set in his first term, the impact on free speech could be varied. “His (first) administration did some things on the campus side, some which were helpful, some which were not. First off, on the helpful side is that we in the United States have an anti-discrimination statute called Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, in education, in any entity that receives federal education dollars.

“The Federal Department of Education was interpreting that statute in ways that threatened free expression, particularly free speech, on sex and gender issues, and the first Trump administration passed rules that were very speech protective to allow for broader discussion and debate about these issues on campus… the Obama administration and the Biden administration both adopted rules that were harmful to free speech on those issues.”

But other executive orders implemented during Trump’s first term, and being continued into this administration, could have stretching powers that impact people’s right to protest and express views freely, Coward added. 

For instance, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bans discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in organisations that receive federal funding, such as universities has now been extended to include anti-Semitism. While hate speech should rightly be tackled, the concern is that the order could be expanded beyond hate speech and used in such a way that stifles the free speech of those who oppose Israel’s policies.

“I suspect we’ll see a lot more enforcement and a lot of speech that is protected by the First Amendment, including criticisms of Israel, that will pressure educational institutions that receive federal dollars,” said Coward. “The institutions will be cracking down on this speech in ways that threaten free expression, and then the education department itself will start investigating institutions for failure to censor that speech.”

Carolyn Iodice, legislative and policy director at FIRE, also told Index about the threats that journalism in the USA could face as a result of Trump’s attitude to the media. The president has sued several media outlets and social media firms because of the way they have reported news about him, represented his opponents or moderated his speech, Iodice said.

“We would have normally expected that the entities like CBS News, Facebook and ABC News would fight that kind of lawsuit; because for one [Facebook], there’s no legal claim to be had against them, and two, with CBS and ABC, if you don’t defend your journalists it creates this chill about what they can and can’t say about the president.” 

Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, is due to pay $25 million to Trump in a settlement, after Trump sued the Big Tech firm and its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg in 2021 over the suspension of his accounts following the 6 January 2021 Capitol riots. ABC has settled its defamation case for $16 million. CBS is also reportedly considering settling over a case involving an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris, where Trump alleged that CBS had edited the show to unfairly cast Harris in a more favourable light.

“The concern there is that you now have, by virtue of these lawsuits, a multi-billion dollar incentive for companies to have their journalists shape their coverage in ways that won’t get them brought back to court by the president again and again,” Iodice said.

Regarding social media, despite anecdotal user reports of censorship on TikTok when it was first reintroduced in the USA, FIRE are generally positive about the steps Trump has taken towards reducing censorship on these platforms. 

“The most promising thing so far,” Iodice said, “is that he issued an executive order that talked about, and was critical of, the practice of the government leaning on social media companies to coerce them to [censor] speech in ways the government couldn’t directly require them to do, because of the First Amendment. And we think that’s a very good thing, regardless of who does it.”

The second Trump Administration outwardly champions free speech for Americans, but the first weeks of government have not always represented this ethos. Those of us working against censorship around the world have looked on with trepidation at this new government, which looks set to overturn the applecart in all facets of government. One can only hope that the First Amendment isn’t flung to the wayside.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK