H.R. 7184 · 119th Congress
PRESS Act
Rep. McDowell, Addison P. [R-NC-6] (R-NC) · Introduced · 32 cosponsors
Latest action
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
· from Congress.gov, as of August 8, 2026
Committees
What this stage means
A smaller group of lawmakers reviews, debates, and edits the bill before it can advance.
Why this matters
Committees do the detailed work — they decide if a bill should move forward and shape its content. Most bills die here.
What can happen next
If approved, the committee reports the bill to the full chamber for debate and a vote.
Study this bill
AP GovThe constitutional question
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) held that the First Amendment gives journalists no privilege to refuse grand-jury questions about sources. Forty-nine states built shield laws in response; federal law never did — so federal prosecutors of both parties have subpoenaed reporters' records for decades. The PRESS Act would create the missing federal privilege by statute, forcing Congress to answer the question the Court punted: who counts as a journalist, and when does national security override the shield?
The strongest case for
Every consequential accountability story of the modern era — surveillance programs, torture memos, agency abuses — began with a confidential source who would have stayed silent if exposure meant prison, and both parties' Justice Departments have seized reporters' phone and email records (the AP in 2013; multiple outlets in the leak hunts of 2017–2020). Forty-nine states protect this relationship; the gap is exclusively federal, precisely where the government investigating itself is most conflicted. The 118th Congress's House passed the identical bill without a single recorded objection. The act shields the newsgathering function, defined by conduct rather than employer, with explicit carve-outs for terrorism and imminent harm — the narrow statute Branzburg invited Congress to write fifty years ago.
The strongest case against
A statutory privilege requires a statutory definition of 'journalist,' and every definition is a licensing scheme in embryo — either broad enough to shield anyone with a newsletter (making leak investigation of genuine espionage impossible) or narrow enough that the government decides who counts as press, the more dangerous outcome. The national-security exceptions either swallow the rule or the rule swallows the security interest; there is no stable middle, which is why the bill dies in the Senate every Congress despite unanimous House votes. Courts already weigh these equities case by case under Justice Powell's Branzburg concurrence, and the leak-prosecution record shows restraint is possible without handing every classified-information recipient a categorical shield.
Foundational documents in play
- U.S. Constitution
The First Amendment's press clause is the backdrop — but the Supreme Court has held it grants no reporter's privilege, so the protection must be statutory.
Required cases in play
- New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
The Pentagon Papers case protected publishing secrets after the fact; the PRESS Act protects the step before — the confidential source who makes such reporting exist.
Organizations supporting
Organizations opposing
- U.S. Department of Justice (institutional opposition to shield statutes across administrations)
This has happened before
The PRESS Act passed the House unanimously in January 2024 — then President-elect Trump posted 'REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL' that November, and it never received a Senate vote. Federal shield bills have run this loop since the Free Flow of Information Act cleared the House in 2007 and 2009, dying each time when proximity to power made the abstraction concrete. The pattern: press protection is consensus in the abstract and radioactive whenever someone specific is leaking about someone specific.
Practice FRQ
SCOTUS Comparison. The PRESS Act would bar the federal government from compelling journalists to reveal confidential sources except in defined emergencies. (A) Identify the First Amendment freedom central to both this bill and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). (B) Explain how the reasoning in New York Times supports statutory protection for newsgathering. (C) Describe one way the government interest asserted in New York Times differs from the interest at stake in compelling source disclosure.
Sources: www.congress.gov · www.newsmediaalliance.org
Action history
Every recorded action from Congress.gov — 7 total.
House
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
House
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
House
Introduced in House
House
Introduced in House
House
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
House
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
House
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.