Rep. Luna Threatens Journalist With Prison For Posting… Public University Bio
If you want to understand how far MAGA Republicans have strayed from any actual “free speech” principles, look no further than this: Congress issued a subpoena to Rolling Stone journalist Seth Harp, because he posted on X a publicly available online biography of someone involved in the illegal and unconstitutional kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro. There was no private information shared. There was no “doxxing” in any sense of the word.
Just to be crystal clear about what we’re talking about here: a member of Congress subpoenaed a journalist and referred him for criminal prosecution for posting information that was publicly available on a university website. Information that a university proudly displays on its own website. Information that, even if it were classified (which it isn’t), would still be constitutionally protected to publish.
Yet, because MAGA folks always need to attack anyone who makes them look silly, they went crazy. First, they got X to lock his account until he deleted the post. Harp explained how there’s no way you could consider this to be doxxing.
If you can’t read that screenshot, Harp’s detailed explanation of why he did nothing wrong is quite thorough and quite obviously true:
Yesterday, X admins locked my account and required me to delete certain posts in order to log back in. No explanation was given, but I had posted the publicly available, online bio of a Delta Force commander, a full-bird colonel, whose identity is not classified and which anyone skilled at FOIA can ascertain.
In no way did I “doxx” the officer. I did not post any personally identifying information about him, such as his birthday, social security number, home address, phone number, email address, the names of his family members, or pictures of his house. What I posted is still online on Duke University’s website for all the world to see.
If you serve in the US military, your personnel documents are public records, as they should be. Because I served in the Army myself, anyone can obtain my records, which show the units in which I served. Nothing exempts Delta Force from this basic transparency.
To illustrate these points, I also posted the records of deceased special operators, obtained through FOIA, that specifically say “Delta Force” on them, unredacted. In the spirit of fairness, I also posted my own service record. X required me to delete those posts, too.
Nothing about this should distract from the larger issue: Delta Force, acting on President Trump’s unlawful orders, which contravened every principle of international law and sovereignty, as well as the Congress’s prerogative to declare war, invaded Venezuela, killed scores of Venezuelans who posed no threat to the United States, and kidnapped the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, as well as his wife.
Every civilian official and military officer in the American chain of command who participated in this outrageously illegal and provocative act of war – which a supermajority of Americans oppose is the legitimate subject of journalistic scrutiny, and X has no business censoring my timely and accurate reporting.
And just to underscore how ridiculous this entire affair is: Duke University, apparently spooked by the controversy, has now scrubbed the bio from its website. The officer’s name and photo remain, but the biographical text—which revealed nothing even remotely sensitive—has been deleted. So Luna’s intimidation campaign worked, at least in getting a university to memory-hole publicly available information about one of its own fellows. This is exactly how chilling effects operate in practice.
And, for that, he gets a subpoena driven by MAGA Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who falsely claimed he was “leaking classified information.” She then followed it up by referring Harp to the DOJ:
That’s Rep. Luna misleading everyone and misrepresenting what Harp did, saying:
I have referred Seth Harp to the DOJ for investigation and to pursue criminal charges regarding the intentional publication of information related to Operation Absolute Resolve, including the doxxing of a U.S. Delta Force operator. That conduct is not protected journalism. It was reckless, dangerous, and put American lives at risk. The First Amendment does not give anyone a license to expose elite military personnel, compromise operations, or assist our adversaries under the guise of reporting.
Congress has a constitutional duty to investigate when national security is endangered, and no one is above oversight. It is also well within my constitutional authority to work with the DOJ to ensure that justice is served. I look forward to the results of a very thorough investigation and the potential filing of charges for violations of multiple U.S. codes.
I have confirmation that the DOJ has received the letter, and we look forward to their findings.
The only truthful part of that is that she has, in fact (ridiculously), referred Harp to the DOJ.
She’s wrong on every other account. He did not “doxx” anyone. And even if he was revealing “information related to Operation Absolute Resolve,” that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.
It’s not even a close call. We did this 55 years ago in the Pentagon Papers case, where the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that of course the First Amendment protects journalists publishing even secret government documents about military operations (which isn’t even what Harp did here)—documents that were actually classified, unlike the public university bio that Harp posted.
Take a moment to review all this: In 1971, the Nixon administration tried to stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers—genuinely secret documents about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court told Nixon to pound sand. Now, in 2026, we have a member of Congress going even further, not just trying to stop publication (which already failed half a century ago), but criminally referring a journalist for publishing information that was publicly available on a university website.
In a concurring opinion in the Pentagon Papers case, Justice Hugo Black wrote poetically about the power of the First Amendment protecting journalists especially when they are embarrassing the government:
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.
Rep. Luna either hasn’t read that, doesn’t understand it, or doesn’t care. Because what she is engaging in is out-and-out harassment of journalists doing their jobs, in an effort to intimidate and chill speech of reporters who report information that Luna and the MAGA Trump world would prefer not see the light of day.
That’s not how this works. It’s not how journalism works. It’s not how the First Amendment works, and it’s not how free speech works.
As Seth Stern from Freedom of the Press said in response to this:
Journalists don’t work for the government and can’t ‘leak’ government information — to the contrary, it’s their job to find and publish the news, whether the government wants it made public or not. Identifying government officials by name is not doxxing or harassment, no matter how many times Trump allies say otherwise. Reporters have a constitutional right to publish even classified leaks, as long as they don’t commit any crimes to obtain them, but Harp merely published information that was publicly available about someone at the center of the world’s biggest news story.
You may recall that after the election in 2024, President Trump demanded that Republicans in the Senate kill the PRESS Act, which had been approved in the house with broad bipartisan support. That law, which would make it even more explicit how the First Amendment protects journalists was killed because Trump and the MAGA base have known all along that they need to violate the First Amendment rights of journalists to try to intimidate and silence them.
This fits a pattern that’s become impossible to ignore: the same people who spent years screaming about “big tech censorship” and “free speech” are now wielding actual government power to silence journalists who embarrass them. The same crowd that insisted Trump would “bring free speech back” is now cheering as he and his congressional allies deploy subpoenas and criminal referrals against reporters.
Remember, it was just a few years ago that Rep. Luna herself was apoplectically accusing the Biden administration of colluding with Twitter to censor users… because she didn’t understand what Jira is. Yet, here, she’s helping the bastardized remains of Twitter, X, silence a journalist herself.
In normal times you could trust that the DOJ would laugh at Rep. Luna’s call for prosecution. But these aren’t normal times. We’ve seen case after case after case of the DOJ bringing bogus, bullshit federal criminal cases against perceived enemies for no reason other than intimidation. That most of those cases are failing in the courts is besides the point. The process itself is the punishment.
And here, Rep. Luna is holding the censor’s axe, abusing her power as an elected official to intimidate and suppress the speech of journalists who were just reporting publicly available information. The First Amendment doesn’t stop applying just because the subject of journalism is inconvenient for the government. But Luna and her MAGA colleagues seem to think it does—or at least, they’re betting that their base won’t care about constitutional principles when it’s “their guy” doing the censoring.