Yes — and doing so before publication creates a protected record of the situation as it exists before any retaliation begins. CFW can help you document the circumstances, understand your options, and build a record that protects both you and your source if the situation escalates after publication.

Publication suppression is one of the most serious press freedom failures that exists in the current accountability landscape. CFW documents the suppression, identifies who applied the pressure and through what channels, and applies public advocacy pressure to expose what happened. TSM can also investigate and publish the suppression itself — the story of a killed story is often as important as the story that was killed.

Yes. Source protection is a core CFW commitment. When a source faces prosecution, termination, or retaliation for sharing information in the public interest, CFW documents the retaliation, builds the paper trail, and applies pressure through FOIA requests and congressional outreach. TSM treats source protection as a fundamental principle of investigative journalism and takes these cases seriously.

Strategic lawsuits designed to drain journalist resources and silence reporting — sometimes called SLAPP suits — are a documented tactic used against accountability journalists. CFW documents the legal intimidation as part of a broader retaliation pattern, identifies which oversight bodies have jurisdiction, and applies public pressure that makes silencing journalists a more costly strategy than addressing what was reported.

Yes. Credential revocations and access restrictions that follow critical reporting are a direct attack on press freedom. CFW documents the timeline, identifies the connection between your reporting and the access restriction, and applies pressure through FOIA requests and congressional outreach to expose the retaliation for what it is.

Blacklisting and defunding of accountability organizations is a well-documented tactic used to silence advocacy work without directly attacking the people doing it. CFW documents the pattern, identifies the communications and decisions driving the blacklisting, and applies public pressure to expose the institutional retaliation behind what is framed as a funding or credentialing decision.

Yes — and this is one of CFW’s primary advocacy lanes. FOIA obstruction against journalists and advocates is a serious transparency failure. CFW files parallel FOIA requests, documents the agency’s obstruction pattern, files OGIS complaints where appropriate, and engages congressional oversight to apply direct pressure on the agency responsible. When agencies continue to stonewall after OGIS complaints and congressional pressure, CFW is prepared to escalate to intent to litigate — making clear that obstruction has consequences. TSM files its own FOIA requests independently which often produces different results.

TSM doesn’t just support this community from the outside — it operates inside it. TSM files its own FOIA requests, publishes its own investigations, and understands firsthand what it means to do accountability journalism in an environment hostile to it. When CFW documents retaliation against a journalist or advocate, TSM can investigate and publish those findings — turning the tools of accountability journalism back on the institutions trying to suppress it.