Zero Reporters in CDC? Please Don't Be Silent.

On Thursday as the Trump Administration was defying a court order to allow three major news organization back into the White House, I sent this to Brian Stelter, CNN media reporter, and Eric Deggans, NPR critic at large and journalism professor. They will be speaking at a session October 1, at the Society of Professional Journalists meeting.

Open letter to Eric Deggans and Brian Stelter,

Regarding the temporary restraining order against keeping news outlets out of the White House, and the apparent Trump administration’s defiance:

Am I right? Politico, CNN, and MS Now have not had access to CDC since well before the Covid catastrophe that killed millions of people.

That’s because no news organization has access to CDC or most federal agencies. And the journalists’ newsgathering is intensely controlled by means of bans on any staff speaking to them.

Reporters were kicked out of agencies and all contacts were either blocked or put under massive surveillance years ago.

Also, as the discussion on the risks of AI heats up, reporters have not had access to the agencies most critical to that in many years, correct? That might include the Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Environmental Protection Agency, etc.

Despite the importance of standing up to the current White House ban, for the media to limit reporting to only a few of the wildfires of information control is a recipe for getting us all burned down.

Below is the letter I drafted to both of you as this was heating up.

Kathryn Foxhall

 

 

Thank you for agreeing to lead the General Session at the SPJ meeting in Columbus, October 1.

I’m a longtime health reporter. I was honored to receive the 2021 Wells Key, the highest SPJ member award, for my work against gag rules impacting reporting.

We are now in massive discussion over President’s Trump’s exclusion of CNN, MS Now and Politico from the White House.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the White House Correspondents Association and 49 media organizations filed a motion to file an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They said they “know firsthand the importance of physical access by the press to government places and personnel, as well as the need for independence from undue government influence so that journalists can keep the public informed and perform their watchdog role.”

But most of the press just does not mention the exclusion of reporters from most federal agencies. Nor do we explain the government controls placed on journalists by gagging staff from speaking to the press without involvement by the authorities. Nor do we talk about these controls on the state and local levels.

How can this be ethical journalism, to object to one but not the other?

How can it be ethical to not report and openly oppose this repression of information on things that impact the public so seriously?

How can it be ethical to not explain to the public how much is withheld from them?

By not exposing or fighting these controls is the press not inducing authoritarian control and massive abuse of humans?

Can there be any doubt that the Covid pandemic’s severity was caused in part by the lack access to CDC and other agencies and by the lack of accountability reporting on those entities?

We are almost seven years out from the beginning of that catastrophe that killed millions. But the press is not telling the public that that exclusion happened. We are not explaining that we are still not in these agencies and are still controlled by the gag rules, as the world grows closer to the next pandemic every day.

Reporters are still not in CDC, nor in most other federal agencies.

How can anything be more unethical?

 

NYT Reporter on the Long -term Tightening

On a recent webinar, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, a long time New York Times reporter said:

“I think about when I used to call a federal agency, you know, back in like the '90s, you know, you could actually call a scientific expert directly and then we sort of morphed into the field where you would call the press shop, maybe at CDC or NIH, and they would get you a scientific expert.

“And then we kind of moved into the field where you would call the press shop and maybe they would get you a scientific expert or maybe they would just give you an answer by talking to the experts themselves. And now we're in the era where Trump has fired or muzzled a lot of the communications staff and you wind up writing to people at HHS or even the White House and you get some kind of gobble-de-gook that is difficult to understand because they themselves are not expert.”

 

CMS: “No reporter is entitled to interviews, press calls, or access to internal staff.”

In a January article for STAT, reporter Bob Herman called on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to “End the opacity with reporters and the public.”

Herman said, “I recently asked one CMS employee to chat with me for a story, to which they responded the agency doesn’t authorize pretty much any interviews these days. ‘It’s not even worth asking. I know the answer would be no,’ the person said.”

His article also said, “A CMS spokesperson sent the following statement that could not be attributed to anyone: ‘CMS rejects the premise that it lacks transparency. The agency provides comprehensive information through formal communications and written responses, and no reporter is entitled to interviews, press calls, or access to internal staff. CMS will continue to engage through established channels that ensure accuracy, consistency, and transparent communication.’”

 

Further History on The Great Reporter Control

Please note that a former CDC media relations head has said that these controls grew more intense and more political over several administrations. Also note a veteran FDA reporter's history of being squeezed out from that agency and from contact with insiders. Another history of the great reporter control is in my 2022 CJR article.

 

Why Isn’t the Press Suing About This?

Unfortunately, these type restraints on reporting have also become common at the state and local levels, as well as public and private organizations.

 However, it's important to know that journalists can sue against the restrictions on their own accord, using a legal path written by Frank LoMonte, Co-Chair of the Free Speech and Free Press Committee of the American Bar Association.

Following that lead, there is an important movement of journalists bringing actions in federal courts, with several favorable outcomes. 

 The City of Miami was sued recently for its policy of forcing reporters to go through media offices to speak to any staff.

Please let SPJ and the rest of us know why major news organizations are silent on the gag rules and the lack of access.

Kathryn Foxhall

Schatz Bill Against Pentagon Press Restrictions: What About the Other Agencies?

This letter went to Senator Brian Schatz, the 13 other senators, who are co-sponsoring the bill and members of their staff on August 10. So far I have not received a response,

Senator Brian Schatz:

I am a journalist with years of fighting against press restrictions. I was honored to receive the Society of Professional Journalists' highest membership award for opposing constraints that agencies place on reporters talking to people. 

Your introduction of the bill to restore press access at the Pentagon is, on its face, absolutely the right thing to do.

However, I urge you to introduce legislation to outlaw these restraints in all federal agencies and offices--not just the Pentagon--and to encourage the current legal efforts against such constraints in the federal courts. 

Many federal agencies--apparently the majority of them--kicked reporters out of their facilities years ago. Very critically, they also banned staff members from speaking to reporters, either completely or without oversight by the authorities, often through a public information office. 

Among many other grave consequences, this meant that for years prior to the Covid pandemic, reporters were not allowed in the CDC facilities and they were blocked or severely controlled in terms of talking to any staff members, including some of the most important infectious disease experts alive.

As a veteran health reporter I have zero doubt that the pandemic's severity was due in significant part to the HHS agencies' control over scrutiny of themselves over many years. My question for anyone is: Why wouldn't it be? Are independent reporting from journalists and accountability from officials critical or not?

Tragically, the news coverage from years prior to the pandemic illustrates the constraints' impact. The media treated the agency as a rich stream of reports and scientific information from which we could gather stories. There was precious little accountability reporting examining the agency's competence in protecting the public. 

Please note that a former CDC media relations head has said that these controls grew more intense and more political over several administrations. Please also read a veteran FDA reporter's history of being squeezed out that agency and out of contact with people inside.

These are just some examples of why it is so hazardous to push for one agency to open access and be silent about the many others that are closed. 

Unfortunately, these type restraints on reporting have also become common at the state and local levels, as well as public and private organizations.

However, there is an important movement with journalists bringing actions in federal courts, with several favorable outcomes. 

The City of Miami was sued recently for its policy of forcing reporters to go through media offices to speak to any staff.

It's important that journalists can sue against the restrictions on their own accord, using a legal path researched by Frank LoMonte, Co-Chair of the Free Speech and Free Press Committee of the American Bar Association.

It's a fair to ask why there is not more outrage from the press about all these other agencies with restraints. Part of the answer is that the press comes from a long tradition in which many people try to hide things from us.  We in the media are rooted in the belief that, "Good reporters get the story anyway." However, there is much evidence, including information that emerges only after a long time, that we are frequently oblivious to important stories.

We use skill and hard work and we "get stuff," some of it very interesting and impactful. 

But as former New York University professor Jay Rosen, says, “The news system is not designed for human understanding. Even at the top providers, it’s designed to produce a flow of new content today - and every day."

We need to hold journalists to account for that. But we also need to ban all this censorship, not just part of it.

Senator Schatz: There are few things more deadly than information control by people in power. For example, if we don't understand whether we are ready for the next epidemic, there may be little else about military readiness that will matter. 

A list of resources is on my blog.

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to talk to you or your staff.

Kathryn Foxhall

cc:

The bill's sponsors and staff. 

To Former NYT Editor: Blocking Reporters and Covid-19: Crimes against Humanity

The following is an email exchange between myself and Dean Baquet, former editor of the New York Times, October 7 - October 15, just prior to the Society of Professional Journalists' conference at which he was named a fellow of the society. Baquet was editor of the New York Times 2014-2022.

Mr. Baquet: 

By orders of the government, there were no reporters in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for years prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. Contacts between reporters and employees were massively controlled, or simply blocked. 

This is a crime against humanity. 

The coverage of CDC during that period reflects those restraints. It is mostly material the agency pushed out, with some citations of outside sources. 

If reporters had been walking the halls of CDC, or simply contacting people normally, without the public information structure manipulating or blocking every communication, we would have known much more about the weaknesses of the world's premier infectious disease agency. 

The entire world's population was denied that potential. 

Glen Nowak, a former chief of media relations for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has given a history of this censorship: presidential administrations of both parties have built on the controls of the prior administration, handing down instructions on who may talk and what may be said. The controls have been strengthened by every president since president Reagan and they are explicitly political.

The Association of Health Care Journalists repeatedly requested--one might say begged--HHS to allow reporters to speak to people AFTER going through the control process with the censors/PIOs. I was on the AHCJ Right to Know Committee.

New York Times health journalist Apoorva Mandavilli said, “It was an experience for me, unusual in science journalism, where you have to be the watchdog for these public health agencies,” and that journalists, "sort of more or less believe what the CDC and WHO said." 

Mr. Baquet: the controls on information in CDC, prior to the pandemic and since, are an atrocity that inevitably increased the pandemic's severity.

Far worse is the fact the gag rules are near pervasive in society now, from Congressional offices and businesses to small town police departments. 

They are so deep in our culture that numerous news outlets refer to source people as "not authorized to speak to the media," without even pausing to examine the horrific human rights abuse that authoritarian speech repression is--the moment it happens--or the other human rights abuses it induces.

Journalists reflexively say, "Good reporters get the story any way." We get some real stuff. However, there is no particular evidence we get five percent of what people in power don't want us to have. The many issues that emerge only after being hidden for years would argue against the idea the press has sufficient overview to even suspect those stories we don't get. 

SPJ has issued a call to action against the restrictions. It has encouraged a movement resulting in three legal cases with good outcomes.  This is based in great part on First Amendment attorney Frank LoMonte's research which says the gag rules are unconstitutional, many courts have said do, and journalists can sue on their own behalf. 

The world is facing a new era in infectious diseases, climate change and a trend toward authoritarian rule. 

For the press to not face up to the gag rules and openly oppose them is an astounding betrayal and a part of the threat to the human race.

SPJ is longtime leader in upholding journalism ethics. You have been named a fellow of the society. I was honored to receive the 2021 Wells Keys, the highest honor for a member, for work against the gag rules. 

I'm calling on you to speak out against and continue to vigorously oppose the gag rules.

Thanks for your attention. I'd be happy to talk anytime.

There are resources below.

Kathryn Foxhall

cc. The Board of SPJ

[From Dean Baquet]

On Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 01:41:17 PM EDT, Dean Baquet  wrote:

I really admire your efforts here. It’s a panel discussion so not sure if it comes up naturally, especially at a time when the future of journalism is top of mind. But it’s a worthy cause for sure.

Best,

Dean

From: Kathryn Foxhall 

To: Dean Baquet

Cc:  [The SPJ Board]

Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 09:01:06 AM EDT

Subject: Re: The gag rules and journalism ethics

I'm not necessarily talking about the panel discussion.  Rather, I'm talking about speaking out about this at any time. 

It is about the future of journalism. The gag rules are virtually everywhere now and becoming more aggressive. 

Kathryn

Presenting at Mediafest: Information Control Is One of the Deadliest Things in History

Over the next several days, MediaFest will be hosting three journalism groups  meeting together in Washington, D.C.: The Society of Professional Journalists, the Associated Collegiate Press and the College Media Association. 

The following is a handout overview of the gag rule culture, written for that meeting. 

We also have a booth and will be presenting at a session Friday, call Ungagging Your Sources,.

Information Control by People in Power
Is Likely the Deadliest Thing in History.

Gag Rules Are a Huge Threat to Your Community
From the First Moment They Exist.

Over several decades, there has been a surge in agencies, official offices, businesses and others banning employees and others from speaking to the press.

In some cases they may be allowed to speak, but only with the authorities’ oversight, often through a public information office.

These restrictions always withhold information from the public and are a huge threat to the community.

It’s deeply corrupt for journalists to work under them, without openly fighting against them.

Reporters Don’t “Get the Story Anyway.”

Journalists often say some version of, “Good reporters get the story anyway.”

Actually, resourceful reporters get some story or other, anyway. 

However, with many people intimidated from speaking to us, there is still much we don’t understand. We are just oblivious to it.

We are like fishers in a small boat on the ocean, declaring a fish we have caught as THE fish.

As an example, before, during and after the Covid-19 pandemic, by government orders, reporters weren’t in CDC and were intensely controlled in terms of contacting staff.

 

Journalists Should Tell the Public and Openly Oppose the Rules.

Proposed ethical standard:

It is unethical journalism to report under these controlled circumstances and not carefully explain the restrictions to the public and openly oppose them.

SPJ has issued a call to action for journalists to, among other things:

-Research and report on speech controls in particular states, localities or institutions.

-Educate journalists, officials and others on the history and the impact of such censorship.

-Join forces with other news organizations, advocacy groups, journalism schools, and press associations to demand answers from public officials and mount legal challenges.

-Push for open access to people, along with pushing for open access to documents, to help ensure the documents are fully understood.

There Is a Legal Path By Which Journalists Can Take Action

Journalists can sue against the restrictions on their own accord, using a legal path researched by Frank LoMonte, Co-Chair of the Free Speech and Free Press Committee of the American Bar Association and senior counsel at CNN.

In three cases journalists have filed suit and made tremendous progress against these rules.

Brittany Hailer, may she be enshrined in journalism history, brought what is believed to be the first such case by a journalist. Settled in 2024, it illustrated the extreme human rights implications of these silencing rules. Hailer sued the Allegheny County Jail in Pittsburgh. With about 1500 inmates and an alleged high death rate, the facility banned any employee or contractor speaking to reporters other than the warden. That included medical personnel. 

In the settlement of the case, the board of corrections agreed, “That its employees and contractors have constitutional rights to speak on matters of public concern when acting as private citizens and not purporting to represent the view of the [Allegheny County Board of Corrections].”

A ruling by a federal court in March, the New York newspaper The Reporter the right to continue with a suit. The ruling said that, as alleged, the Delaware county’s directive against speaking to the press “‘imposes a significant burden on the public’s right to read and hear what the employees would otherwise have written and said,’” quoting an important 1995 Supreme Court ruling on government employees’ speech, United States v. National Treasury Employees Union.

The Key Biscayne Independent news outlet filed a federal lawsuit June 24 against the Village of Key Biscayne, claiming the media policy the village adopted in November is an unconstitutional infringement on the free press. The Village has canceled that policy for now.

See: Profficecensorship.blogspot.com

A paper for the Joint Journalism and Communication History Conference, March 28, 2025.
Email:  Kathryn Foxhall: kfoxhall@verizon.net.

Third Suit Is Filed by Journalists Against Gag Rules in Public Agencies

What is thought to be the third lawsuit by journalists against public agency bans on employees speaking to reporters has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Key Biscayne Independent filed a federal lawsuit June 24 against the Village of Key Biscayne, claiming the media policy the village adopted in November is an unconstitutional infringement on the free press.

The suit says, “local government employees are currently prohibited from “communicat[ing] in any manner with any media entity,” absent pre-approval from superiors. This wide-ranging limitation on speech—sweeping in not only statements made pursuant to official duties, but also casual conversation, personal opinions, and whistleblowing on matters of clear public concern—is unconstitutional.” 

It also states, “The First Amendment protects not just the right to speak but also the press and public’s ‘right to receive information,’” citing the decision in the 1976 case Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.

The Key Biscayne Independent  is represented by attorneys from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Florida law firm Shullman Fugate.

Kathryn Foxhall, longtime advocate against such gag rules, said, “We applaud the courage of the Key Biscayne Independent in taking this stance against these dangerous blockages that have become so common.”

The Society of Professional Journalists has encouraged journalists to take actions, including lawsuits, against these increasingly common bans.

In last year’s call to action after the first such suit ended in a favorable settlement, SPJ urged journalists to consider similar legal action; use the cases for discussions and editorials opposing such speech restrictions; and educate the public about the dangers of such censorship.

At least two courts have now said journalists can sue on their own accord against such gag rules. In April last year, investigative journalist Brittany Hailer won a favorable settlement, with strong First Amendment language, supporting employees’ and contractors’ right to speak to reporters. Hailer had filed a legal action against the Allegheny County Jail in Pittsburgh, which had such restrictions even in the face of an allegedly high rate of inmate deaths and even on medical professionals who worked there.

 The Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press represented Hailer, whose reporting was funded in part by The Pulitzer Center.  

 Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York allowed a case to go forward that is in part about a public agency's ban on employees speaking to the press. The owners of the Catskills-based “The Reporter,” are represented by the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic and Michael J. Grygiel of Greenberg Traurig.

Foundational thinking for such cases was provided by a 2019 report by prominent SPJ leader Frank LoMonte, currently Co-Chair of the Free Speech and Free Press Committee of the American Bar Association’s Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice. 

 In a summary report, LoMonte said of the constraints: “Media plaintiffs should be able to establish that their interests have been injured, whether directly or indirectly, to sustain a First Amendment challenge to government restraints on employees’ speech to the media.”

Further background is available here.

Labor Department's Threatens Criminal Charges for Talking; And Other Indicia of Where We Are

The Labor Department (of all agencies!) is threatening to bring criminal charges against employees who talk to reporters: Labor Department Says Staff Could Face Criminal Charges for Leaks — ProPublica

---The Small Business Administration is investigating staff for talking to the press or former colleagues.

---Michael Lewis' popular new book, "Who is Government," mentions the months-long effort he was forced to go through with FDA's communications department to talk to public servant Heather Stone for one of his profiles. How have journalists come to the point of referring to tyrannical suppression just in passing? And this from an agency that holds our lives in its hands. 

If CDC Messaging Is Bad Now, It's Enabled by a Long-Accepted System of Controls

There's been a surge in federal agencies and many other entities banning employees from speaking to journalists without notifying authorities or public information officers."

Now it belongs to the current administration.

The Washington Post published my letter to the editor on April 10.