最初只是法官蒂莫西·J·凯利在裁决意见中附带提及的一个脚注——该裁决阻止了唐纳德·特朗普总统试图禁止MS NOW、CNN和Politico进入白宫的努力——如今却已成为核心问题，甚至可能对整个自由媒体产生深远影响。
What began as a footnote in Judge Timothy J. Kelly’s opinion blocking President Donald Trump’s effort to ban MS NOW, CNN and Politico from the White House has become the primary issue — potentially with ramifications for the entire free press.
尽管特朗普最初声称，他禁止这些媒体是因为反对它们所报道的内容（并且此后仍不断提及这一点，包括上周接受《时代》杂志采访时），但司法部律师显然意识到，特朗普的主张在宪法第一修正案下难以成立，因此在法庭上提出了不同的论点：他们声称，禁止MS NOW、CNN和Politico进入白宫，是因为这些媒体发布了“敏感或机密信息”。
Although Trump initially said he was banning the outlets because he objected to what they had reported (and has continued to mention this, including in an interview with Time published last week ), Justice Department lawyers — no doubt recognizing that Trump’s claim was unlikely to fly under the First Amendment— made a different argument in court: that MS NOW, CNN and Politico were banned because they had published “sensitive or classified information.”
媒体事务组织首席执行官：特朗普正试图“摧毁这个国家的自由媒体” 2026年10月5日凯利在9月24日的裁决意见中驳斥了国家安全方面的论点，该意见恢复了这些媒体的进入权限。他在脚注中写道，他对国家安全是否是此次禁令的“真实动机，甚至是否被用作理由”持“怀疑态度”。
Media Matters CEO: Trump is trying to ‘break the free press in this country’ October 5, 2026 Kelly rejected the national security argument in his Sept. 24 opinion reinstating the outlets’ access, writing in a footnote that he was “skeptical” that national security was the “actual motivation for, or is even advanced by” the ban.
凯利还写道，他必须遵循一项已有50年历史的判例法，该判例规定白宫不得未经正当程序而撤销媒体记者的采访资格。
Kelly also wrote that he was required to follow 50-year-old case law that says the White House can’t revoke press credentials without due process.
随着各方于周四重返法庭，政府方面此次论点的范围将产生广泛影响。
As the parties return to court Thursday, the scope of the administration’s argument has far-reaching implications.
“站不住脚的理由”：特朗普政府在新提交的法律文件中，再次坚持实施媒体禁令。美国司法部辩称，由于联邦法律禁止发布机密信息，这些媒体机构事先已被告知可能面临的制裁。司法部还援引了《间谍法》，这项法律长期以来一直被用于压制言论。这是政府首次主张，主流新闻机构的记者因发布敏感或机密信息而可能面临刑事起诉——此前这一论点仅用于针对维基解密创始人朱利安·阿桑奇。
‘Paper-thin basis’: Trump admin. TRIPLES DOWN on media ban in new legal filing DOJ has argued that because federal law prohibits publishing classified information, the outlets had advance notice sanctions that could be leveled. It has cited the Espionage Act, a law that has a long history of being used to suppress speech For the first time, the government appears to be arguing that journalists from mainstream news outlets can be criminally prosecuted for publishing sensitive or classified information, an argument it previously reserved for WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange There is good reason to be alarmed.
我们确实有充分理由感到担忧。记者，尤其是报道国家安全问题的记者，经常从消息来源处获取敏感或机密信息。近几十年来一些最重要的新闻，例如美国大规模未经搜查令的窃听事件，以及导致阿富汗战争长期化的失误，都是基于机密信息报道的。近年来，两党政府都试图加强对媒体发布机密信息的管控。
It’s common for journalists, especially those who cover national security issues, to obtain sensitive or classified information from sources. Some of the most important news stories of recent decades, such as the vast warrantless wiretapping of Americans and the mistakes that prolonged the war in Afghanistan were based on classified information. In recent years, administrations of both parties have tried to crack down on media publication of classified information.
记者发布此类信息并非为了损害国家的安全，而是为了保护国家安全。正如最高法院在1971年保护媒体发布《五角大楼文件》权利时所指出的那样——这份关于越南战争的机密研究由揭发者丹尼尔·埃尔斯伯格泄露——“只有自由且不受限制的媒体，才能有效揭露政府的欺骗行为。”公众需要这类报道，以促使民选领导人承担责任。
Journalists publish such information not to harm our nation’s security but to protect it. As the Supreme Court recognized in its 1971 decision protecting the press’s right to publish the Pentagon Papers— a classified study of the Vietnam War leaked by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg — “[O]nly a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”The public needs this kind of reporting to hold elected leaders accountable.
然而，近年来，两党政府都试图严厉打击媒体披露机密信息的行为。例如，奥巴马政府依据《间谍法》对八名被控向媒体泄露信息的人提起诉讼——这一数字创下了纪录。在特朗普的第一个任期内，以及乔·拜登前总统执政期间，联邦政府推行了一种危险的法学理论：仅凭获取和发布机密信息就应承担刑事责任。
Yet in recent years, administrations of both parties have tried to crack down on media publication of classified information. The Obama administration, for instance, brought charges under the Espionage Act against eight people accused of leaking to the media — a record number In the first Trump administration and continuing under former President Joe Biden, the federal government pushed a dangerous legal theory: criminal liability for simply obtaining and publishing classified information.
在特朗普的第一个任期内，司法部依据《间谍法》以获取并公布泄密者切尔西·曼宁提供的机密文件为由起诉了阿桑奇。2013年，曼宁因向维基解密泄露信息而被判入狱35年，其中包括一段美国军事袭击的录像，该袭击导致手无寸铁的平民和记者丧生。在美国，起诉像曼宁这样的消息来源并非闻所未闻，但将记者因发布泄露信息而监禁却属罕见。当阿桑奇被起诉时，新闻自由倡导者和媒体机构警告称，起诉他将开创一个先例，可能使未来的政府得以起诉记者。
In Trump’s first term, the DOJ charged Assange under the Espionage Act for obtaining and publishing classified documents from whistleblower Chelsea Manning. In 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking information to WikiLeaks, including video of an U.S. military attack that killed unarmed civilians and journalists Prosecuting sources like Manning is not unheard of in the United States. But jailing journalists for publishing leaked information is. When Assange was charged, press freedom advocates news outlets warned that prosecuting him would set a precedent that could allow a future administration to prosecute a journalist.
然而，拜登政府并未 heed 这一警告，而是继续推进对阿桑奇的起诉。最终，阿桑奇承认了一项共谋违反《间谍法》的指控。他的认罪协议并未解决该法律能否根据《第一修正案》用于起诉记者这一法律问题，但却发出了一个明确的警告：发布机密信息的记者可能成为下一个目标。
Rather than heed that warning the Biden administration continued the Assange prosecution. Ultimately, Assange pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act. His plea deal did not resolve the legal question of whether the act can be used against journalists, consistent with the First Amendment, but it sent a clear warning: Journalists who publish classified information could be next.
不到两年后，特朗普政府的司法部便援引阿桑奇案，为突袭《华盛顿邮报》记者汉娜·纳坦森住所的行为辩护。随后，调查人员表示，他们的目标并非纳坦森本人，而是她关于美国在委内瑞拉行动的报道。
Less than two years later, Trump’s DOJ cited the Assange case to justify raiding the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson. Then, investigators said their focus was not Natanson but her for her reporting about U.S. operations in Venezuela.
特朗普“接连失利”，却想通过媒体禁令“转移注意力”：前特朗普白宫官员 2026年9月25日目前，政府为支持特朗普试图禁止MS NOW、CNN和Politico的报道而提出的论点，已超越了上述所有争议。政府声称，仅凭披露国家安全信息本身即属违法，而记者理应清楚这一点。当凯利驳回这一论点时，他指出，既没有将法律适用于记者的先例，也没有任何证据表明这些媒体机构违反了联邦法律。
Trump ‘racking up loss after loss’ and wants media ban to ‘distract’: Fmr. Trump WH official September 25, 2026 Now, the government’s argument in defense of Trump’s effort to ban MS NOW, CNN and Politico goes beyond all of that by claiming that publication of national security information alone breaks the law and that journalists should know that. When Kelly rejected this argument, he noted both “the lack of precedent” for applying the law to reporters and the absence of any evidence that the news outlets had violated federal law.
然而，司法部仍在坚持这一论点，特朗普也表示，他会上诉任何不利于自己的裁决。如果高等法院接受这一论点，特朗普政府就可能获得实际起诉记者的权力，而不仅仅是禁止他们进入白宫。而且，由于政府文件过度机密化的现象普遍存在，即使记者所报道的内容并非真正机密，他们仍可能面临起诉的风险。
But the DOJ continues to push this argument, and Trump has said he would appeal decisions that go against him. If a higher court accepts this argument, the Trump administration could be empowered to actually prosecute journalists, not just ban them from the White House. And because overclassification of government documents is rampant journalists could be at risk of prosecution even if material they publish is not legitimately secret.
即便特朗普政府并未利用这种扩大的权力起诉任何一名记者——而这本身就是一个巨大的“如果”——言论自由仍可能受到抑制，因为媒体机构和记者会在报道机密材料前三思而后行。这意味着，媒体不仅无法报道白宫的活动，还将失去在“五角大楼文件案”中已被认可的权利，即向公众揭示危险的政府秘密。
Even if the Trump administration doesn’t prosecute a single reporter using such an expanded power — and that’s a big if — speech is still likely to be chilled as news outlets and journalists think twice before publishing classified material. That means the media wouldn’t just be unable to report on activities at the White House. It would lose the power, endorsed in the Pentagon Papers case, to inform the people of dangerous government secrets. The post How the government argument for Trump’s media ban threatens the entire free press MS NOW