A few weeks ago, a New York Times reporter who reached out to the White House for comment was surprised to receive a rejection— with the reason cited as pronouns in their email signature. 

“As a matter of policy, we do not respond to reporters with pronouns in their bios,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary said in her response. Cherry-picking the journalists allowed to cover the White House over perceived political affiliation is just one example of the ways in which US citizens have lost their rights to a free press over the past few months.

The past few months have seen historic changes to the United States political landscape, from massive federal funding cuts to the dismantling of entire government agencies. For the press, this has meant challenges accessing sources, information, and significant attempts at censorship. Large news organizations such as the New York Times and Associated Press, smaller local newspapers, and student publications alike are struggling with navigating these changes, and unbiased reporting is more difficult than ever before.

As a student journalist, I am one of the many people standing at the forefront of the fight against restrictions to the press and censorship. At The Wire, we as an editorial board have had numerous conversations about how to manage a rapid increase in post-publication deletion requests, requests we would never have considered before January. 

I’d be the first to admit I don’t know what the right decision is regarding possible censorship, and large news organizations don’t know what to do either. But the fact that we are even having these conversations, and considering removing historical records at all, is telling of the precarious times we are in.

According to the ACLU, “Donald Trump has pledged to defend the Constitution — even an article that doesn’t exist — but he can’t seem to lay off that pesky First Amendment.”

It is no longer just about access to press briefings or transparency in public policy. It is about the right to document, to question, to hold power accountable. When the government begins to decide which reporters are acceptable, or when government institutions retroactively sanitize their archives, we inch closer to a country where truth becomes negotiable.

The chilling effect has already been significant. Sources hesitate. Journalists self-censor. Editorial boards across the country debate whether publishing a piece is worth the backlash. And through it all, the public loses the ability to stay informed, and journalists lose their rights to cover important and interesting stories.

Student journalists have always been an essential part of this larger ecosystem. We’re often the first to cover local issues, raise challenges about institutional policies, or give a voice to underrepresented campus communities. That role has never been more important, or more difficult. And yet, it’s also a moment of reckoning and purpose. 

Journalists who work for US outlets, especially if they report internationally, have never been more at risk. From reporting in a war zone to publishing information from a whistleblower, the profession has always had substantial risks. But for US news outlets, the loss of rights and protections like this has not been seen in recent history. 

The path forward seems remarkably unclear. How can we deny the demand for deletion requests when over 1,000 international students studying here in the US have had their visas revoked in the past few months, often for no reason at all, or for previously legal instances of First Amendment expression. But by considering deleting names, it deletes vital parts of the historical record, primary sources that often can’t be retrieved. 

There are no good options in facism, which is what the US government is quickly descending into. Large news organizations are censoring themselves, reporters are their pronouns from their email signatures and social media profiles, and sources that would before go on the record without question are hesitating. The best we can do is treat each other with empathy and understanding, and make the best choices given the information provided to us knowing it’s incomplete.