Mainstream media have long covered use of the Espionage Act with extreme skepticism. But there was nary a peep of protest from the press as former president Donald Trump was arraigned Tuesday in a Miami federal court on charges mostly stemming from the statute.
Then: Even before national-secret-tellers Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange were charged under the Espionage Act, journalists worried the law gave the government too much power.
Espionage Act 'Makes Felons of Us All'? http://abcn.ws/fyaMcK
— ABC News (@ABC) December 13, 2010
Lawyer for Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning assails administration's use of Espionage Act. http://t.co/ThXH1sCbr5
— POLITICO (@politico) April 14, 2014
Analysis: Want to end the war on whistleblowers? Revise the Espionage Act. https://t.co/BM4vv9o4RX
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 1, 2017
BREAKING: US Justice Dept. announces new charges against Julian Assange, including Espionage Act charges connected with publishing classified material, raising concerns about First Amendment limits and protections for publishing classified information - @KenDilanianNBC
— NBC News (@NBCNews) May 23, 2019
New York Times, "Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues":
For most of American history, it was rare for the government to treat the leaking of its secrets to the news media as a crime. But starting in the second half of the George W. Bush administration and accelerating during the Obama administration, the Justice Department began making much more routine use of the Espionage Act to go after officials who provided information to the public through reporters, as opposed to actual spies. The World War I-era law criminalizes the disclosure of potentially damaging national security secrets to someone not authorized to receive them.
On its face, the Espionage Act could also be used to prosecute reporters who publish government secrets. But many legal scholars believe that prosecuting people for acts related to receiving and publishing information would violate the First Amendment.
After the Trump administration prosecuted leakers Reality Winner and Terry Albury under the Espionage Act, years of reporting ensued on the threat the law posed to dissidents.
NPR, "Once Reserved For Spies, Espionage Act Now Used Against Suspected Leakers":
The Espionage Act never envisioned modern communications. Its critics call it antiquated; it was last amended more than a half-century ago.
The government secured Winner's conviction under the World War I-era Espionage Act, though prosecutors do not call her a spy, and in her plea agreement, government attorneys recognize that the document she leaked was sent to a news outlet rather than a foreign adversary.
CBS News, "Reality Winner and the Debate Over the Espionage Act":
Winner's conviction has added to a century-long controversy over the Espionage Act and its relationship to free speech.
New York Times, "Ex-Minneapolis F.B.I. Agent Is Sentenced to 4 Years in Leak Case":
The sentencing ... brought to a close the second leak case charged under the Espionage Act during the Trump administration after Attorney General Jeff Sessions's vow last year to crack down on unauthorized disclosures of classified information. …
Betsy Reed, the editor in chief of The Intercept, which published a lengthy profile of Mr. Albury on Thursday, said in an email that it was getting easier for the government to hunt down journalists' sources using surveillance and internal monitoring systems. She warned of a growing chill for investigative journalism.
Now: With Trump on the other side of the Espionage Act, many in the media seem to have lost interest in the constitutional implications.
How the Espionage Act Could Take Down a Former President https://t.co/TZVShgmYfU via @msnbc
— Ali Velshi (@AliVelshi) June 11, 2023
New York Times, "In Earlier Espionage Act Cases, Warning Signs for Trump":
Since 2018, there have been about a dozen criminal prosecutions of people retaining classified or national defense information, according to the Justice Department.
In many of the cases, the defendants received lengthy prison sentences, reflecting how seriously the government takes protecting the country's secrets.
MSNBC, "Espionage Act Charges, Which Trump Could Face, Cover More Than 'Spying'":
Charges under the epic-sounding law wouldn't mean that prosecutors need to prove the former president was working with a foreign government.
CBS News, "What is the Espionage Act?"
Despite its name, the Espionage Act isn't limited to traditional espionage. It's also used as a vehicle to prosecute cases of mishandling classified information.
"The fact that it is still called the Espionage Act is really confusing for most people, because the law generally has nothing to do with spying at this point," said [national security lawyer Brad] Moss. "It should be renamed the Official Secrets Act, not the Espionage Act."