当特朗普总统近期试图禁止三家新闻机构进入白宫时，他提出了对国家安全关切的担忧，解释自己为何认为这一举措是必要的。国家安全是美国人愿意在新闻自由问题上作出妥协的领域之一，但美国人并不总会轻易接受这类说法。总体而言，美国人无疑重视新闻自由，但对大多数人来说，新闻自由也意味着记者应当遵守某些界限，尤其是在国家安全方面。
When President Trump recently sought to ban three news outlets from the White House, he mentioned national security concerns as one explanation for why he felt the move was warranted. National security is one area where Americans are willing to compromise on press freedom. But they do not always take such claims at face value. Overall, Americans unquestionably value press freedom. But for most people, that comes with certain limits they think journalists should abide by — particularly around national security.
例如，大多数美国人表示，新闻机构不应在冲突期间刊登有关军事行动的涉密信息。多数人还表示，如果一篇报道可能对国家安全构成风险，美国政府应有权要求新闻机构将其下架。这些发现来自皮尤—骑士倡议（Pew-Knight Initiative）开展的一项关于新闻自由观念的新调查。尽管该研究是在特朗普最近采取行动之前进行的——这些行动已暂时被一名联邦法官阻止——但研究结果触及了一个长期存在的矛盾：美国人应当在新闻自由与国家安全之间的哪个地方划定界线 人们不愿拿美军士兵或平民的生命冒险，这似乎很自然，甚至不足为奇。
For instance, most Americans say news organizations should not publish classified details about military operations during an active conflict. And a majority say the U.S. government should be able to require a news organization to take down a story if it poses a national security risk. These findings come from our new survey from the Pew-Knight Initiative on views of press freedom. Although this study was conducted before Trump’s recent actions — which have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge — it speaks to a longstanding point of friction: Where should Americans draw the line between press freedom and national security? It may seem natural, even unsurprising, that people don’t want to risk the lives of U.S. troops or civilians.
与此同时，调查发现与《第一修正案》的一项核心原则存在张力，即政府不应拥有审查言论和新闻的权力。美国人显然并非总体上全面否定新闻自由。绝大多数人表示，新闻自由对社会福祉极其重要或非常重要。但只有10%的人认为，如果一篇报道批评政府，政府就有权将其撤下 人们正在那些与切实危险有关的限制，以及那些看似出于政治目的的限制之间划清界线。参与这项研究的焦点小组成员也意识到了其中的微妙差别。
At the same time, our findings sit in tension with a core First Amendment principle: that the government shouldn’t have the power to censor speech and the press. Americans certainly are not voicing a blanket rejection of press freedom in general. A large majority say that freedom of the press is extremely or very important to the well-being of society. And just 10 percent say the government should have the power to get a news story removed because it’s critical of the government. People are drawing a line between restrictions tied to a concrete danger and those that look politically motivated. Focus group participants who were a part of this study saw this nuance.
“我的意思是，这些东西中的任何一样都可能让人的生命陷入危险，”一名三十多岁、立场偏右的男子说，“无论是军方、中央情报局，还是任何卧底、任何军方人员。我们不知道这件事可能让谁的生命陷入危险。我认为，它被列为机密是有原因的，不应该被传播。”
“I mean, a lot of these things could put people’s lives in danger,” said one right-leaning man in his 30s. “Military, CIA, anyone undercover, any military. We don’t know whose lives could be at danger for this. I think there’s a reason why it’s classified. It shouldn’t be distributed.”
一名四十多岁、立场偏右的女子提出了另一种看法：“我同意，如果那确实是会让我们国家或任何人陷入危险的东西，那么他们公布它就完全错了。不过，我们能否完全相信这确实涉及国家安全问题？还是说，这个人是一名举报者，而那件事是我们真正应该知道的，只是他们却以‘这是安全问题’为借口将其压下？”
A right-leaning woman in her 40s offered another perspective: “I would agree that if it was truly something that would put our country or anybody in danger, that would be totally wrong for them to publish that. However, can we trust completely that it does have to do with national security concerns? Or is this person a whistleblower, and it’s something we really should know, but they’re putting it under the blanket of ‘this is a security concern?’”
五月底和六月初开展焦点小组访谈前后，五角大楼限制媒体采访一事正受到广泛关注。当时，政府也以国家安全问题为由进行限制，但一名五十多岁、立场偏左的男子对此表示怀疑。“是谁告诉我这是紧急情况？”他说，“他们提出了国家安全问题。自从我们现任总统上任以来，我们经历了多少紧急情况？大概有27次？也就是说，什么事情都是紧急情况？在我看来，这不过是政府再次限制媒体的机会。”
Pentagon restrictions on press access had been getting attention around when the focus groups were conducted in late May and early June. While the government also mentioned national security concerns in that case, a left-leaning man in his 50s expressed skepticism. “Who’s the source that’s telling me that it’s an emergency?” he said. “They’re citing national security concerns. How many emergencies have we had since our current president took office? Something like 27 emergencies? Like, everything’s an emergency? To me, it’s just another opportunity to clamp down on the press.”
在很多方面，这些看法以及人们对相关人士的情绪，都受到了党派立场的影响。与民主党人士相比，共和党人士更有可能认为，为保护国家安全，政府应当可以叫停新闻报道（72%对50%）。60%的共和党人士认为，在冲突期间公布军事行动的机密细节绝不可接受，而民主党人士中这一比例为35%。这些数字包括倾向支持两党的独立人士。
In many ways, these views — and feelings toward the actors involved — are seen through a partisan lens. Republicans are considerably more likely than Democrats to say the government should be able to nix a news story to protect national security (72 percent versus 50 percent). And 60 percent of Republicans say it is never acceptable to publish classified details about military operations during an active conflict, compared with 35 percent of Democrats. These figures include independents who lean toward each party.
自特朗普重新执政以来，民主党人对可能出现的新闻自由限制问题变得更加担忧；72%的民主党人认为，在特朗普的第二个任期内，新闻自由受到了削弱。在这种背景下，他们不太愿意让政府来决定哪些新闻应该被压制。共和党人则普遍不希望将这种权力交给记者——他们对新闻机构的信任在过去十年中大幅下降，74%的共和党人认为大多数记者存在“偏见”。
Democrats have become far more concerned about potential restrictions on press freedom since Trump returned to office, and 72 percent say the press has become less free during Trump’s second term. In this context, they are not as comfortable letting the government make judgments about what news should be suppressed. Republicans largely don’t seem to want this power in the hands of journalists: Their trust in news organizations has declined substantially over the past decade, and 74 percent describe most journalists as “biased.”
与此同时，军方却享有两党共同的支持与信任，这是美国其他机构所难以企及的。根据皮尤研究中心2025年10月的一项调查，75%的美国人表示相信军方会为公众的最大利益行事；这一比例远高于对记者（47%）和民选官员（27%）的信任度。这种基础性的信任使得美国人在涉及国家安全的问题上更愿意听从政府的判断——即便他们在其他方面对政府赋予媒体过多权力持谨慎态度。
The military, meanwhile, benefits from a bipartisan reservoir of trust that few other American institutions enjoy. In an October 2025 Pew Research Center survey, 75 percent of U.S. adults said they have confidence in the military to act in the public’s best interest — a far higher share than say the same about journalists (47 percent) and elected officials (27 percent). That baseline trust may make Americans more willing to defer to the government’s judgment when national security is invoked, even if they’re otherwise wary of giving officials broad power over the press.
美国人并非在“自由”与“安全”之间简单地选择立场，也没有人天生支持或反对审查制度；他们会根据具体情况进行权衡。这种权衡在很大程度上取决于信任：他们相信那些以国家安全为由采取行动的人是出于善意，同时也相信报道相关问题的记者是负责任地履行职责的。不过，美国人并不会对这两种信任给予同等的重视；许多来自不同政党的美国人原则上都愿意在国家安全与新闻自由之间做出取舍。
Americans aren’t simply picking a side in an abstract freedom-versus-safety debate, and most aren’t reflexively pro- or anti-censorship. They are reasoning through it, case by case. This reasoning depends in part on trust: trust that the person invoking national security is doing so in good faith, and that the journalists reporting on these issues are doing so responsibly. Americans don’t extend both kinds of trust equally. Many Americans of both parties are comfortable prioritizing national security over press freedom in principle.
不过，实际情况远比理论复杂得多。卡特琳娜·伊娃·马萨（Katerina Eva Matsa）是皮尤研究中心的新闻与信息研究主任，迈克尔·利普卡（Michael Lipka）则是该中心的研究副主任。
What’s clear is that it’s not as simple in practice. Katerina Eva Matsa is the director of news and information research at Pew Research Center, where Michael Lipka is an associate director of research.