Journalism Has Become More Challenging, for Reporters and Sources

At 1 a.m., an email sits at the top of my inbox that will keep me awake for hours. A source no longer wants to participate in a story I’ve been working on, citing the “challenging” political climate. The story was focused on a rewilding project. Rewilding refers to restoring land — a dairy farm in this instance, to its uncultivated state. The rewilding process is one of the most effective forms of climate action. Yet despite the relatively uncontroversial nature of the story, the source expressed fears they might lose federal funding over the mention of climate change.

While Sentient is under no obligation to kill a story at a source’s request, going forward with this particular article would violate the trust of a source, and potentially put their work at risk.

This is not an isolated incident. This increasingly common scenario has come up in discussion repeatedly at journalism conferences and in conversations with colleagues. In covering everything from federal science funding to rewilding efforts, sources who, just last year, would have been eager to discuss their work are now far more reluctant.

How Sources Have Gone Silent

Since the beginning of the second Trump presidential administration, I have sent numerous emails to academic researchers and government affiliates inquiring about their work and whether it would be impacted by the changes. Those messages, about ten of them, went either unanswered or ghosted. While it’s impossible to be sure why emails went unanswered, on other occasions, sources affiliated with universities agreed to interviews but refused to comment on anything they deemed too political citing their fear over Trump’s response.

For the rewilding story, my source changed their mind, expressing fear that the federal government would rescind their nonprofit’s federal grants. Yessenia Funes, a freelance journalist, has had similar experiences. “I’ve had organizations that I’ve worked with in the past be like we just can’t help you. We’re going to decline this interview request, which I have never experienced before,” she tells Sentient. She suspects their refusals are driven by fear of retribution — including having their funding cancelled.

The Trump administration has significantly cut or threatened to cut funding for universities, reshaping education policy and governance of colleges and universities. Earlier this year, he also threatened to rescind the 501c3 status of nonprofits working on climate change. Though he failed to uphold that threat, nonprofit organizations and nonprofit news outlets were scrambling to prepare themselves.

Government employees have also increased their caution when speaking with the media, Grey Moran, an investigative reporter here at Sentient, says. During the course of their recent reporting, even former federal workers who were laid off during the Department of Government Efficiency cuts earlier this year are hesitant to talk.

“They were still holding onto a hope that their firing would be found to be illegal and they might be reinstated,” Moran says. Those who have been willing to talk have agreed only under the condition of anonymity. It’s not just themselves they’re worried about, Moran adds. “They’re concerned about their colleagues and how losing their job could affect the integrity of the agency’s work as a whole.”

“In some cases, this reluctance to speak may be a form of anticipatory obedience, when it is coming from people who are in a relatively safe position to speak,” Moran says, adding that relative safety is something the source has to judge for themselves.

For some sources, the risks could be imminent. “It’s always a struggle to get undocumented folks in particular, to speak on the record,” Funes tells Sentient, out of fear they will be detained or deported. “With the current administration, there’s even more of a reluctance.” Funes feels the impact beyond individuals. “I’m also struggling to connect with community organizations,” she says.

Sentient maintains a secure end-to-end encrypted email so that sources can reach out anonymously.

Seth Stern, Director of Advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation, tells Sentient that the risk isn’t just to Democrats. “Lately I think the Trump administration and the Republican Party more generally have been governing as if the shoe will never be on the other foot,” he says, adding this cautionary note: “All of these powers that they are attempting to create for themselves could easily be used against them by a future administration. We said the same thing during the Biden administration, when Joe Biden, for example, went after Julian Assange for routine news gathering practices.”

After Trump leaves the White House, those additional powers remain, Stern adds. “What about the next person? Legislation and legal precedents and norms outlive any one presidency,” says Stern.

How Sources and Journalists Carry On

In some cases, the threat to the journalist is personal. Stern points to the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a grad student who co-wrote an op-ed in a student newspaper calling for the university to “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide.” The op-ed apparently led immigration authorities to detain her. She subsequently wrote about her detainment for Vanity Fair and her university paper, among other news outlets.

Journalists are adapting as best they can. Funes has tried to stay flexible, taking extra time to cultivate relationships with her sources and ensure their comfort. “The stories still matter,” Funes says, “and the communities still need our coverage.”