PRESS Act Dies in the Senate: A Win for National Security or a Blow to Freedom?

Washinton D.C. – In a move that highlights the growing tension between transparency and national security, the Republican-led House passed H.R. 4250—the “Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act” (PRESS Act)—only to have it quietly die in the Senate. While framed as a victory for journalistic freedom, the bill’s passage—and its subsequent demise—raises questions about motives, unintended consequences, and the troubling lack of accountability among lawmakers.

The PRESS Act aimed to protect journalists from being compelled to disclose confidential sources, shielding them from governmental overreach that could jeopardize press freedom. This legislation gained bipartisan support in the House, passing through a voice vote that notably obscured individual lawmakers’ positions. Among its co-sponsors was the late Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. H.R. 4250 was touted as a necessary shield for journalists at a time when press freedoms are under assault. The bill’s provisions prohibited the federal government from forcing journalists to reveal their sources, offering protections against subpoenas or other legal maneuvers aimed at extracting information.

Supporters argued that such protections are vital in an era of unprecedented political polarization. Conservative journalists and whistleblowers have increasingly faced scrutiny and even prosecution from federal agencies. By codifying source protections, proponents claimed the PRESS Act would create a firewall between a journalist’s work and government interference.

But while the bill addressed legitimate concerns, its broad language opened the door to potential abuse. Critics warned that the PRESS Act could inadvertently provide cover for those seeking to exploit anonymity for nefarious purposes. Bad actors—both inside and outside the government—could weaponize the protections to avoid accountability. Furthermore, national security experts raised alarms that the bill’s vague definitions could hinder intelligence operations, particularly in cases involving leaks that threaten national safety.

Senate Silence and the Texas Connection

Despite its passage in the House, the PRESS Act met a quiet demise in the Senate, where it failed to gain traction. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas played a key role in blocking the bill. Cotton, citing concerns over national security, stated, “The PRESS Act would undermine our national security and turn liberal reporters into a protected class. No American citizen should be afforded the privileges provided in this bill, least of all the media.” He further added, “The press badge doesn’t make you better than the rest of America or put you above the law.”

Last month, President-elect Donald Trump urged Republicans to “KILL” the PRESS Act, a call echoed by conservative lawmakers who viewed the legislation as an overreach. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized this stance, writing on X, “This bill would protect journalists against overreaching government surveillance. It would ensure reporters can’t be legally required to disclose sources or research files or hand over data held by phone and internet companies.”

Cotton’s actions marked the second time he stymied the PRESS Act, having first blocked a vote on the bill back in December 2022. Critics of the Senate’s inaction point to the bill’s bipartisan origins, emphasizing that its support spanned ideological divides. However, the silence surrounding the bill’s failure is perhaps more damning than its defeat.

The House’s decision to pass the bill via voice vote ensures there is no record of which representatives supported or opposed it. This lack of transparency makes it impossible for Texans—or any Americans—to hold their elected officials accountable.

A Double-Edged Sword

The PRESS Act exemplifies the challenge of crafting legislation that balances liberty with security. On one hand, the bill addressed a clear and present danger to press freedom. Journalists—particularly those covering controversial or politically sensitive topics—face increasing risks from a government that appears more interested in silencing dissent than fostering accountability.

However, the bill’s broad protections risked creating loopholes for misuse. By shielding all journalists, the PRESS Act could inadvertently protect bad actors who use journalistic credentials as a shield for unethical or illegal behavior. Additionally, the lack of clear definitions within the bill raised concerns about its potential to undermine legitimate government investigations.

These competing priorities—protecting the press while safeguarding national security—underscore the difficulty of legislative reform in a polarized political climate. The PRESS Act’s failure reflects not just partisan gridlock but also a deeper unwillingness among lawmakers to confront the complexities of modern governance.

A Betrayal of Public Trust

The Senate’s quiet burial of the PRESS Act is a stark reminder of the growing disconnect between Washington and the American people. While the bill’s intentions were noble, its flaws demanded honest debate and rigorous scrutiny. Instead, lawmakers opted for obfuscation, leaving constituents with more questions than answers.

For Texans, the lack of transparency is particularly galling. The voice vote in the House ensures there is no accountability for representatives who may have supported a flawed bill. Meanwhile, the Senate’s inaction reflects a broader trend of legislative lethargy, where controversial issues are avoided rather than addressed.

As the dust settles, the PRESS Act serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of hasty legislation and the consequences of political cowardice. For the press, the fight for freedom is far from over. For the public, the demand for accountability has never been more urgent. And for lawmakers, the message is clear: the American people deserve better than silence and subterfuge.

U.S. Representative Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, has called for President Joe Biden to step aside as the Democratic nominee for the 2024 presidential election. Veasey, a prominent figure in Texas politics and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, has joined a growing chorus of Democrats who believe that Biden’s age and perceived lack of fitness are jeopardizing what should otherwise be a winning campaign.

This announcement came as part of a joint statement issued on Friday by Veasey and three other House Democrats: Jared Huffman of California, Chuy Garcia of Illinois, and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin. The statement praised Biden’s record but stressed the need for new leadership. “At this point… we must face the reality that widespread public concerns about your age and fitness are jeopardizing what should be a winning campaign,” it read.

Veasey’s call is particularly significant as he is the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus to publicly ask Biden to withdraw. While other Texas members of the CBC, such as Reps. Jasmine Crockett of Dallas and Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston, have been vocal in their support for Biden, Veasey’s stance represents a notable departure.

This move places Veasey in the national spotlight during a crucial election year, particularly as he faces a competitive race for his seat in U.S. House District 33. His Republican opponent, Patrick Gillespie, has been mounting a strong campaign, hoping to capitalize on any perceived weaknesses among the Democratic incumbents.

Patrick Gillespie, a seasoned candidate, brings a robust background to the race. Born in Huntington, West Virginia, Gillespie has lived in Texas for many years. He graduated from Huntington High School and attended Marshall University. His career includes work as a technical writer at several major companies, including Boeing, BAE Systems, American Airlines, and Flextronics International. Gillespie has also served as vice president of Local Lodge 2768 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union.

Gillespie’s campaign focuses on conservative principles and a strong critique of current Democratic policies. His campaign page outlines his positions on various issues, including immigration, foreign policy, climate change, and gun violence. He advocates for strict immigration controls, citing the need to vet immigrants properly and prevent what he describes as an invasion of illegal crossings. Gillespie also emphasizes the importance of a strong national defense and economic policies aimed at curbing foreign influence and protecting American interests.

One of Gillespie’s key arguments is the need to address the country’s significant challenges, such as the federal debt and the fentanyl crisis. He criticizes “woke” policies in education and calls for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. His stance on gun violence focuses on enforcing existing laws and improving mental health care rather than implementing new restrictions on gun ownership.

Veasey’s decision to call for Biden to step aside could have significant implications for his re-election campaign. District 33, while heavily Democratic in voter registration, could see a shift if Democratic voters are disillusioned by the national party’s leadership struggles. In the 2022 election, Veasey defeated Gillespie by a wide margin, securing 72% of the vote to Gillespie’s 25%. However, this year’s political climate is different, with heightened tensions and a more energized Republican base.

The district itself is one of the most gerrymandered in Texas, snaking its way through various parts of Fort Worth, Carrollton, and Arlington. This unique geographic makeup makes it a challenging district to campaign in, as candidates must address the diverse concerns of its residents.

Gillespie’s campaign is banking on a strong turnout from Republican voters and hoping to sway independent and moderate voters who may be disillusioned with the current Democratic leadership. Early voting for the election begins on October 21, 2024, and runs through November 1, 2024, with Election Day set for November 5, 2024.

Veasey’s call for Biden to step aside is a gamble that could either solidify his position as a leader willing to take bold stances or alienate some of his core supporters. As the election approaches, all eyes will be on District 33 to see how this dramatic move will play out and whether it will influence the broader political landscape in Texas and beyond.

For now, Veasey’s statement reflects a growing sentiment among some Democrats that new leadership is needed to secure a victory in the 2024 presidential race. Whether this sentiment will resonate with voters in District 33 and across the country remains to be seen. As the campaign unfolds, Veasey and Gillespie will continue to vie for the support of their constituents, each hoping to emerge victorious in a year that promises to be one of the most pivotal in recent memory.

Dallas, TX – In a heated and divisive political climate, Rep. Jasmine Crockett [D-TX-30] has reignited controversy with a fiery post on X.com, doubling down on her stance regarding H.R.8081, the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act.” This bill, co-sponsored by Crockett, aims to strip former President Donald Trump of his Secret Service protection, following his conviction on felony charges.

Crockett’s Explosive Response

Following an assassination attempt on Trump during a rally in Pennsylvania, Crockett took to X.com to defend her position and challenge her critics. Her post, marked by overt racism and sexism, has drawn sharp rebuke from across the political spectrum. Crockett’s inflammatory remarks included accusations of “white privilege” and a stark dismissal of her opponents as “losers” and “illogical.”

“Oh the evil & illogical who don’t even serve on my level believe they have sway or authority over me (insert white privilege),” Crockett wrote. She continued, “While I’ve been out of the country on official business, these losers have been looking for Twitter clout.”

Crockett’s post not only defended her stance on the bill but also questioned why taxpayers should foot the bill for Secret Service protection for a convicted felon. “As a sitting member of congress we don’t even get secret service protection so why should taxpayers foot the bill for someone who a jury of his/her peers has deemed guilty of a felony or in this case 34 of ‘em, if they are sentenced to time.”

Oh the evil & illogical who don’t even serve on my level believe they have sway or authority over me (insert white privilege).

While I’ve been out of the country on official business, these losers have been looking for Twitter clout.

But I’ll be gracious because I’m sure half… https://t.co/cDtEQ5hzte

— Jasmine Crockett (@JasmineForUS) July 17, 2024

A Brazen Attack on Trump and Republicans

Crockett’s comments went further, questioning the masculinity of Trump and his supporters. She compared Trump’s situation to that of Martha Stewart, suggesting that Trump’s supporters were implying he was weaker than Stewart. “If Martha Stewart could survive, I’m not sure why y’all are so scared that your Orange Savior couldn’t or is it that you want to admit that women are stronger than many of you, including him?” she quipped.

Her rhetoric didn’t stop there. Crockett boldly challenged her critics to try to unseat her, confident that her constituents would stand by her. “The next time you think it’s a great idea to talk to me; don’t. And… If y’all think your ideas or opinions matter to my district, go work against me to get me kicked out of office… I dare you to go knock doors in my district and cry a river to my constituents and see how it works out for you 😘.”

A Divisive Figure

Crockett’s post has been widely condemned as not only defensive but deeply divisive. Critics accuse her of using overtly racist and sexist language to attack her opponents, while also displaying a palpable hatred for Donald Trump.

Townhall.com highlighted Crockett’s remarks, pointing out the inflammatory nature of her statements. “Crockett also found a way to make yet another issue about ‘white privilege’ and her own importance,” noted the publication. This rhetoric, coupled with her dismissal of her critics, suggests that Crockett may be attempting to position herself as a victim in this scenario.

Political Fallout

The political fallout from Crockett’s comments has been swift. Texas Republicans, already calling for her resignation over the bill, have intensified their demands. The assassination attempt on Trump has only heightened the urgency and emotion surrounding this issue.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), who introduced the bill, also faced backlash for his stance. While Thompson responded more diplomatically, Crockett’s aggressive post has drawn significantly more attention and criticism.

Trump’s Legal Battles

The bill in question, introduced on April 19, came just before Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts in New York. The legal battles surrounding Trump have been a focal point of national attention, and the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity in the Trump v. United States case has further complicated the situation. Trump’s sentencing, initially scheduled for July 11, has been delayed to September 18, with many believing his conviction will be overturned on appeal.

Independent Candidate Ken Ashby

In the midst of this controversy, Independent candidate Ken Ashby is gaining traction as he challenges Crockett in the upcoming election. With no Republican candidate in District 30, Ashby has positioned himself as the primary conservative alternative. He has capitalized on the controversy surrounding Crockett, criticizing her judgment and her divisive rhetoric.

Ashby released a statement condemning Crockett’s remarks, emphasizing the need for unity and respect in political discourse. “This bill is a dangerous precedent. We must protect all our Presidents, past and present, to uphold the dignity of the office and ensure national security,” Ashby stated.

A Community Divided

Crockett’s district, encompassing parts of Dallas and surrounding areas, remains divided. While some constituents support her strong stance and outspoken nature, others are dismayed by her comments and the potential implications of the DISGRACED Former Protectees Act.

As the political drama unfolds, Rep. Jasmine Crockett remains defiant in the face of mounting criticism. Her recent post on X.com has only deepened the controversy surrounding her co-sponsorship of H.R.8081 and her stance on Trump’s Secret Service protection. With the upcoming election and a formidable opponent in Ken Ashby, Crockett’s political future hangs in the balance. The voters of Texas’ 30th District will ultimately decide whether they stand by Crockett’s divisive rhetoric or seek a new direction in their representation.

The outcome of this race will not only impact North Texas but also reflect the broader national divisions and the challenges facing American politics today.