How the War on Terror Became a War on the First Amendment
What to expect from this newsletter in 2025.
A couple of days after the presidential election, I was in Washington, D.C., for a panel at the Double Exposure Investigative Film Festival and Symposium. The topic? How the U.S. government has been narrowing the definition of journalism.
I was a case study.
In May, the Justice Department, unhappy with my interviews with a terrorism defendant in federal detention, went after me in a court filing, alleging I had “improper motives” and was colluding with the defendant to “taint the jury pool and undermine the fairness of the trial.”
This filing didn’t just attack me; it attacked journalism itself, insinuating that federal prosecutors can decide who counts as a journalist — and who, therefore, deserves First Amendment protections. A lawyer representing me responded to the judge in this case, Jonathan J.C. Grey, setting the record straight on the Justice Department’s false claims and reminding the judge and federal prosecutors of “the essential and constitutionally protected role that journalists serve in our society.”
In its filing, the Justice Department assumed I was making a documentary and put forward a novel argument: I am too good at what I do. No, really. Prosecutors argued that a problem with my journalism is that the storytelling is so emotionally resonant that it’s too persuasive:
I’ll take compliments wherever I find them, but the argument that a powerful piece of journalism could disqualify itself as journalism is as dangerous as it is absurd, especially now, with legacy media shrinking and the incoming Trump administration already hinting at fresh attacks on the press. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press produced this video with me to describe the dangers of this argument:
This experience has sharpened my views on government accountability and the role of the press. I now realize that it’s naive to think journalists are immune to the abusive systems we investigate. But this moment also revealed how the reporting threads I’ve been tugging on for two decades are now winding together in ways both fascinating and terrifying.
Since the late 2000s, I’ve been reporting on how the FBI has weaponized First Amendment-protected speech in terrorism investigations. After 9/11, the FBI gained the power to launch investigations without a criminal predicate — in other words, reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring. Initially, these new “assessment” powers were justified by claims that the FBI needed to respond to vague threats quickly. Hey, Mr. FBI Agent, isn’t it suspicious that my neighbor bought a bunch of fertilizer and propane? Assessments provided the FBI with a route to investigate those kinds of tips.
But over time, these powers targeted Muslims engaging in First Amendment activities. Speaking critically of U.S. foreign policy in a mosque or voicing sympathy online for jihadi groups — these kinds of speech justified the opening of FBI investigations, leading to entrapment schemes where agents or informants provided everything necessary for “plots” that otherwise wouldn’t exist. These aggressive tactics ensnared Muslims who were often vulnerable — impoverished, mentally ill — raising the question of whether the FBI was creating the threat it claimed to be preventing. I wrote about these operations in my book The Terror Factory (recently re-released in a Tenth Anniversary Edition), gave a TED Talk, and have continued reporting about how the abusive practices have evolved.
A decade ago, I warned that criminalizing First Amendment-protected speech wouldn’t stop with Muslim communities. As public tolerance for these abuses grew, and as the courts largely refused to intervene, I predicted that this approach would spread to target a broader range of Americans.
And here we are. The abuses that once targeted Muslim communities are no longer limited to them.
Over the years, I’ve covered examples of how federal law enforcement has stretched and abused First Amendment protections — targeting a Black gun-rights activist over his provocative social media posts, FBI agents posing as journalists and filmmakers, and elaborate catfishing operations targeting Americans for things they say in private online communities.
The abuses worsened starting in 2020, a hinge-point year for the world. As I first revealed in my podcast series “Alphabet Boys,” the FBI infiltrated groups of racial justice activists in Colorado and then attempted to push them toward violence, including a plot to assassinate the state’s attorney general that went nowhere. The FBI files I obtained revealed that the entire investigation was based on speech: A convicted felon with a history of tall tales told the FBI he’d heard vague talk of violence among activists, which was all that was needed for the FBI to launch an undercover probe and hire the felon as a paid informant. That same summer, the FBI led a group of militia members in a harebrained plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. FBI agents appeared to have targeted some of the militiamen as a result of a little-known program, Operation Bronze Griffon, through which Facebook employees flag social media posts to federal agents, providing them with user data without a search warrant or subpoena.
Today, we’re seeing First Amendment attacks in three concerning ways:
Assembly — Protests, like those following George Floyd’s murder or the war in Gaza, have become pretexts for criminal investigations.
Speech — Comments alone, through the FBI’s “assessment” powers, can spark federal investigations.
Journalism — Reporters face government intimidation and, in some cases, criminal prosecution, while undercover agents exploit what’s left of the public's trust in the press.
And that brings me to this newsletter.
What to Expect in 2025
I’ve been grappling with how to use a newsletter effectively. The creator economy can offer freedom, a financial lifeline outside of corporate media, but it comes with trade-offs:
Audience and Impact — Building a financially sustainable newsletter means narrowing your audience behind a paywall. A rough example: 2,000 subscribers paying $5 per month is $120,000 in annual revenue — not bad. But with a paywall activated, your audience is minuscule — no more than 2,000 readers. Sure, it’s possible to scale up. The Free Press reports $5 million in revenue, mostly from subscriptions. But most newsletters, even financially viable ones, have relatively small audiences, limiting the impact of the journalism.
Publishing Cycle — The economics of newsletters favor frequent publishing, prioritizing commentary and aggregation over in-depth investigative reporting. The monetization of reputation is also common with newsletters: Journalists once known for investigative work are churning out commentary, resting on their laurels instead of producing the kind of journalism that built their reputation.
My focus is on long-form journalism — the kind of work that combines thorough investigation with narrative storytelling. This year alone, I produced two documentary series for Audible — “Pulse: The Untold Story” and “Hold Fast: The Unadulterated Story of the World’s Most Scandalous Website.” These projects take time and resources and reach broad audiences — objectives that don’t align well with the newsletter model.
Yet, newsletters also offer a direct and transparent connection with readers — essential as trust in journalists erodes. So, starting next year, I’ll ramp up this newsletter, aiming for a hybrid approach.
Every Tuesday, I’ll write about the FBI as it transforms under a second Trump administration and, more broadly, about cases that reveal how First Amendment protections are under attack by federal agencies including the FBI. I’ll cover how speech and assembly are used to justify criminal investigations, how the government attempts to define who counts as a journalist, and the dangerous consequences of these trends.
While social media moderation often dominates free-speech debates, the government’s attacks on free speech and press protections — the true threats to the First Amendment — often go ignored. This newsletter will be a chronicle of these attacks, offering context for how they evolved from post-9/11 abuses targeting Muslims to today’s War on the First Amendment. The FBI will be central to this larger story, but certainly not alone. The United States has more than 80 federal law enforcement agencies.
In parallel, I’ll continue developing long-form journalism, including audio documentaries, magazine features, and films. I’m now working on a new documentary series for Audible, set for release early next year. This newsletter will also highlight these larger projects and, when possible, offer subscribers exclusive access to bonus material, source documents, Q&As, and extended interviews.
Starting January 7, expect this newsletter in your inbox every Tuesday morning.
Why You Should Become a Paid Subscriber
When you become a paid subscriber (and to those of you who already are, thank you), you’re supporting not only this newsletter but also my long-form work. This revenue serves as a development fund, allowing me the freedom to pursue ambitious, impactful reporting projects for general audiences.
I also want to be responsive to you. If something resonates, let me know. If something doesn’t, tell me. Your feedback will shape this newsletter.
Here’s how you can support my work going into 2025:
1. Become a Paid Subscriber
2. Share This Newsletter
Thank you for your support. Look for the first issue of the weekly newsletter on January 7.