from the five-stars-don’t-beat-one-amendment dept

This was extremely wild shit to be happening anywhere, much less in the land of the First Amendment. No sooner had Donald Trump decided it was time to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War than the head of DoD operations decided it would be sorting news agencies by level of subservience.

Pretending this was all about national security, the Defense Department basically kicked everyone out of the Pentagon’s press office and stated that only those that chose to play by the new rules would be allowed back inside.

Booted: NBC News, the New York Times, NPR. Welcomed back into the fold: OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart. The Pentagon wanted a state-run press, but without having to do all the heavy lifting that comes with instituting a state-run press in the Land of the Free.

Somewhat surprisingly, some of those explicitly invited to partake of the new Defense Department media wing refused to participate. Fox and Newsmax decided to stay out, rather than promise they’d never publish leaked documents. Those choosing to bend the knee were those who never needed this sort of coercion in the first place: One America News (OAN), The Federalist, and far-right weirdos, the Epoch Times. In other words, MAGA-heavy breathers that have never been known for their independence, much less their journalism.

That didn’t stop Hegseth and the department he’s mismanaging from attempting to take a victory lap. And it certainly didn’t stop news agencies like the New York Times from suing over this blatant violation of the First Amendment.

It’s so obvious it only took the NYT four months to secure a win in a federal court (DC) that is positively swamped with litigation generated by Trump’s swamp. (h/t Adam Klasfield)

The decision [PDF] makes it clear in the opening paragraph how this is going to go for the administration and its extremely selective “respect” of enshrined rights and freedoms.

A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription. Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.

Amen.

The court notes that in the past, there has been some friction between national security concerns and reporting by journalists. In some cases, the friction has been little more than the government chafing a bit when something has been published that it would rather have kept a secret. In other cases, leaks involving sensitive information have provoked reform efforts on both sides of the equation, seeking to balance these concerns with serving the public interest.

Up until now, any efforts to expel reporters have been limited to backroom bitching. What’s happening now, however, is unprecedented.

Historically, though, even when Department leaders disliked a journalist’s reporting, they did not consider suspending, revoking, or not renewing the journalist’s press credentials in response to that reporting. Julian Barnes, Pete Williams, and Robert Burns—reporters who have spent decades covering the Pentagon—as well as former Pentagon officials, are not aware of the Department ever suspending, revoking, or not renewing a journalist’s credentials due to concern over the safety or security of Department personnel or property or based on the content of their reporting.

This may be new, but the court isn’t willing to make it the “new normal.” It’s the decades of precedent that truly matter, not the vindictive whims of the overgrown toddlers currently holding office.

The Pentagon claims that demanding journalists agree not to “solicit,” much less print data or information not explicitly approved for release by the Defense Department doesn’t reach any further than existing laws governing the handling of classified documents. The court disagrees, noting that the new policy allows the government to conflate the illegal solicitation of classified material with the sort of soliciting — i.e., requests for information, etc. — journalists do every day in hopes of securing something newsworthy.

On top of allowing the government to punish people for things that weren’t previously considered unlawful, the demand for obeisance wasn’t created in a vacuum. Instead, it flowed directly from this entire administration’s constant attacks on the press by the president and pretty much every one in his Cabinet.

The plaintiffs are correct: “The record is replete with undisputed evidence that the Policy is viewpoint discriminatory.” That evidence tells the story of a Department whose leadership has been and continues to be openly hostile to the “mainstream media” whose reporting it views as unfavorable, but receptive to outlets that have expressed “support for the Trump administration in the past.”

The story begins prior to the adoption of the Policy, when—following extensive reporting on Secretary Hegseth’s background and qualifications during his confirmation process—Secretary Hegseth and Department officials “openly complained about reporting they perceive[d] as unfavorable to them and the Department.” Then, in the weeks and months leading up to the issuance of the Policy, Department officials repeatedly condemned certain news organizations—including The Times—for their coverage of the Department. For example, in response to reporting by The Times on Secretary Hegseth’s alleged misuse of the messaging platform Signal, Mr. Parnell posted on X to call out The Times “and all other Fake News that repeat their garbage.” Mr. Parnell decried these news organizations as “Trump-hating media” who “continue[] to be obsessed with destroying anyone committed to President Trump’s agenda.” In other social media posts leading up to the issuance of the Policy, Department officials referred to journalists from The Washington Post as “scum” and called for their “severe punishment” in response to reporting on Secretary Hegseth’s security detail.

It was never about keeping loose lips from sinking ships. It was always about cutting off access to news agencies the administration didn’t like. And once you’ve gotten rid of the critics, you’re left with the functional equivalent of a state-run media, but without the nastiness of having to disappear people into concentration camps or usher them out of their cubicles at gunpoint.

The court won’t let this stand. The new policy violates both the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment (due to the vagueness of its ban on “soliciting” sensitive information). That’s never been acceptable before in this nation. Just because there’s an aspiring tyrant leaning heavily on the Resolute Desk these days doesn’t make it any more permissible.

The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected. But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election. As Justice Brandeis correctly observed, “sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants.”

The administration will definitely appeal this decision. And it almost definitely will try to bypass the DC Appeals Court and go straight to the Supreme Court by claiming not being able to expel reporters it doesn’t like is some sort of national emergency. It will probably even claim that the fight it picked in Iran justifies the actions it took months before it decided to involve us in the nation’s latest Afghanistan/Vietnam.

But it definitely shouldn’t win. This isn’t some obscure permutation of First Amendment law. This is the government crafting a policy that allows it to decide what gets to be printed and who gets to print it. That’s never been acceptable here. And it never should be.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, defense department, dod, free speech, leaks, pete hegseth, trump administration

Companies: ny times

from the mass-surveillance-winning-again dept

Two years ago, Congress passed the “Reforming Intelligence and Securing America” Act (RISAA) that included nominal reforms to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill unfortunately included some problematic expansions of the law—but it also included a relatively big victory for civil liberties advocates: Section 702 authorities were only extended for two years, allowing Congress to continue the important work of negotiating a warrant requirement for Americans as well as some other critical reforms. 

However, Congress clearly did not continue this work. In fact, it now appears that Congress is poised to consider another extension of this program without even attempting to include necessary and common sense reforms. Most notably, Congress is not considering a requirement to obtain a warrant before looking at data on U.S. persons that was indiscriminately and warrantlessly collected. House Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed that “the plan is to move a clean extension of FISA … for at least 18 months.” 

Even more disappointing, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, who has previously been a champion of both the warrant requirement and closing the data broker loophole, told the press he would vote for a clean extension of FISA, claiming that RISAA included enough reforms for the moment.

It’s important to note RISAA was just a reauthorization of this mass surveillance program with a long history of abuse. Prior to the 2024 reauthorization, Section 702 was already misused to run improper queries on peaceful protesters, federal and state lawmakers, Congressional staff, thousands of campaign donors, journalists, and a judge reporting civil rights violations by local police. RISAA further expanded the government’s authority by allowing it to compel a much larger group of people and providers into assisting with this surveillance. As we said when it passed, overall, RISAA is a travesty for Americans who deserve basic constitutional rights and privacy whether they are communicating with people and services inside or outside of the US.

Section 702 should not be reauthorized without any additional safeguards or oversight. Fortunately, there are currently three reform bills for Congress to consider: SAFE, PLEWSA, and GSRA. While none of these bills are perfect, they are all significantly better than the status quo, and should be considered instead of a bill that attempts no reform at all. 

Mass spying—accessing a massive amount of communications by and with Americans first and sorting out targets second and secretly—has always been a problem for our rights.  It was a problem at first when President George W. Bush authorized it in secret without Congressional or court oversight. And it remained a problem even after the passage of Section 702 in 2008 created the possibility of  some oversight. Congress was right that this surveillance is dangerous, and that’s why it set Section 702 up for regular reconsideration. That reconsideration has not occurred, even as the circumstances of the NSA, Justice Department, and FBI leadership, have radically changed. Reform is long overdue, and now it’s urgent.  

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Filed Under: congress, fisa, jim jordan, mass surveillance, section 702, surveillance

Looking for an inexpensive pair of earbuds to toss in your gym bag? You can snag our favorite budget wireless earbuds, the JLab Go Pop ANC, for a shockingly low $19 on Amazon, an $11 markdown from their usual price. Don’t let the cost fool you, these earbuds have surprised multiple WIRED writers with their clear sound, water resistance, and ANC performance.

These earbuds have all the features you’d expect from a pair five times the price. They sport IP55 water and dust resistance, perfect for a sweaty trip to the gym or a long run on the beach, and multipoint pairing in case you want to use them for a quick call on your laptop. The included app has an adjustable equalizer, something not even all expensive earbuds can claim, plus programmable controls in case you don’t like the default button layout. Battery life is even pretty decent for the category, with eight hours of juice in the buds and up to 32 hours total with the included charging case.

When you’ve got the tunes going, the JLab Go’s active noise-canceling is surprisingly effective, easily tuning out the hum of an HVAC system and other annoyances. Like other ANC-capable earbuds, they also come equipped with a transparency mode for letting in important sounds, and it works surprisingly well given how little these earbuds cost. You might want to consider something more serious for your next long-haul flight, but these work in a pinch for some yard work or a quick workout.

If you’re sold on a pair of these extra inexpensive earbuds, you can swing over to Amazon to grab the JLab Go Pop ANC in fuchsia for $19. While most of the other colors were listed for their full $30 price, which is still a steal by the way, you can also grab the transparent neon green or transparent teal for just $20, which may be worth the dollar depending on your aesthetic preferences. For more upgraded picks, check out our guide to the best wireless earbuds, with hand-tested picks by WIRED writers.

The London-based platform, which already covers 1.5 million eligible lives across enterprise and healthcare deployments, is using the Series A to accelerate US market entry and deepen its clinical infrastructure, with a new CEO who sold his last company to Adobe.

JAAQ, the London-based digital health engagement platform, has raised $17 million in a Series A round. The investment comes from Meridian Health Ventures, Fuel Ventures, Bolt Angels, and Guinness Ventures, with the capital allocated to scaling enterprise partnerships, deepening clinical infrastructure, and expanding into the United States. Dr. Pooja Sikka, a partner at Meridian Health Ventures, has joined the company’s board as part of the deal.

The company was founded in 2021 with a direct-to-consumer model built around video-based mental health content. It has since pivoted to an enterprise and healthcare focus, embedding that content library, now more than 10,000 clinically reviewed videos, inside the digital products of insurers, employers, and healthcare organisations rather than distributing it to individual users.

The logic is structural: rather than asking people to seek out a mental health platform, JAAQ places its content inside the apps and services they are already using. It currently covers more than 1.5 million eligible lives through active enterprise deployments.

Alex Packham has joined as CEO to lead the company through its next phase. Packham is best known for ContentCal, a social media management SaaS platform he built and sold to Adobe in December 2021, after which he spent three years leading the product’s integration inside Adobe before departing.

The platform’s commercial proposition has two layers. Organisations can license content from JAAQ’s library and integrate it into their own product journeys, or they can licence a bespoke hosted JAAQ experience.

The company is also building infrastructure it describes as a “clinical engagement layer” for AI-native products, designed to let any digital product or team embed governed mental health content into user journeys without building the clinical governance apparatus themselves.

The pitch to enterprises is that this addresses two problems simultaneously: the mental health access gap, and low engagement with wellbeing benefits that organisations invest in but employees rarely use.

The clinical governance framing is central to how JAAQ differentiates itself from generic AI wellness tools. The platform’s content is produced within a defined clinical and creative framework, rather than generated on demand, and Johri’s appointment is intended to signal that the product is being built with clinical credibility embedded rather than bolted on.

Meridian Health Ventures, which focuses specifically on UK health tech with a pathway into the US market, is a natural fit for that positioning: the firm runs the first NHS-anchored venture fund and has a dedicated Innovations in Mental Health Fund.

The US expansion is the strategic priority the funding is designed to unlock. The UK market has provided validation, the company’s website references case studies including a UK bank that saved £896,000 in employee productivity and wellbeing improvements, and an insurer that deflected the equivalent of twelve full-time customer service roles through JAAQ-served content.

Translating that model into the US employer and health insurer market, where mental health benefits are increasingly a board-level priority but engagement remains a persistent problem, is the next test.

More Information

The Federal Communications Commission has released a notice today designating any consumer routers manufactured outside the US as a security risk. The rule states that new foreign-made product models for network routers will land on the Covered List, a set of communications equipment seen as having an unacceptable risk to national security. Previously purchased routers can still be used and retailers can still sell models that were approved by the prior FCC policies. In an exception to the usual rule, routers included on the Covered List can continue to receive updates at least through March 1, 2027, although the date could potentially be extended.

The move stems from a goal in the White House’s 2025 national security strategy that reads: “the United States must never be dependent on any outside power for core components—from raw materials to parts to finished products—necessary to the nation’s defense or economy.” The notice from the FCC states that companies can apply for conditional approval for new products from the Department of War or the Department of Homeland Security. However, that requires the businesses to provide a plan for shifting at least some of their manufacturing to the US in order to receive that conditional approval.

Few, if any, brands known for consumer-grade routers currently build products stateside. It seems likely this sweeping provision could face legal challenges from and cause confusion for the many companies that have production facilities overseas. In addition to Chinese tech giants like TP-Link, US companies will also be affected. NetGear, Eero and Google Nest are all headquartered domestically but have manufacturing in Asia. At least some of that manufacturing activity happens in regions like Taiwan that have historically been on good terms with the US. Until the sector sorts out this new restriction, don’t expect to see any new router models on store shelves.