Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) is a U.S.-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded in 2012 to protect public-interest journalism, whistleblowers, and the public’s right to know.
FPF is not a news outlet and does not tell journalists what to publish. Its strongest work is more concrete: it builds security infrastructure, trains journalists, documents violations, and challenges government secrecy.
What they actually do
SecureDrop
SecureDrop is an open-source system through which sources can anonymously submit documents to journalists. It is designed to reduce the metadata and surveillance risks associated with email and ordinary cloud services.
FPF reports more than 100 SecureDrop installations at major news organizations worldwide. In 2025, 61 newsrooms actively received whistleblower material through the system.
Dangerzone
Dangerzone converts potentially malicious documents into safer PDFs inside an isolated environment. This addresses a practical problem: files sent to journalists may contain malware intended to identify a source, compromise a reporter’s computer, or penetrate an entire newsroom.
Unlike many nonprofit “awareness” projects, SecureDrop and Dangerzone are functional, open-source tools whose code and real-world use can be independently examined.
Digital security education
FPF trains journalists, filmmakers, and newsrooms in account security, encryption, source protection, threat modeling, and protection from online harassment. According to the organization’s 2025 activity report, it trained 3,335 journalists during that year.
U.S. Press Freedom Tracker
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker records arrests, assaults, equipment seizures, subpoenas, and other interference with journalists. FPF documented 255 incidents during 2025.
A public database does not prevent abuse by itself, but it creates evidence that can be analyzed by journalists, researchers, attorneys, and civil-rights organizations instead of leaving each incident as an isolated anecdote.
Government transparency and advocacy
FPF campaigns against surveillance of journalists, abuse of the Espionage Act, censorship, secret law, unjustified classification, and restrictions on reporting. In 2025, it says it filed more than 250 Freedom of Information Act requests and six FOIA lawsuits.
Who is behind the organization
FPF’s founding figures included Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, internet-freedom activist John Perry Barlow, filmmaker Laura Poitras, and other journalists and civil-liberties advocates.
Its current board includes digital-rights activist Rainey Reitman, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, investigative journalist Azmat Khan, filmmaker Laura Poitras, actor John Cusack, and journalist Katie Drummond. Executive Director Trevor Timm has led the organization since its early years.
The presence of Snowden, Ellsberg, and Poitras reflects FPF’s central principle: journalism must be able to investigate state power, including intelligence agencies and national-security institutions, without allowing the government to decide what the public may know.
Political and ideological context
FPF is not politically neutral. Its editorial voice is combative, and much of its recent advocacy has focused on threats to the press under the Trump administration. Readers may sometimes find its rhetoric more partisan than its underlying work requires.
However, the evidence does not support dismissing FPF as merely an arm of the Democratic establishment. The organization also sharply criticized the Biden administration for continuing the prosecution of Julian Assange, expanding surveillance powers, supporting the TikTok ban, maintaining excessive secrecy, and failing to defend journalists killed in Gaza.
This willingness to challenge both parties is important. FPF’s position is generally closer to traditional civil-liberties advocacy than to loyalty toward a particular administration.
There is also an important distinction between defending journalism and endorsing every journalist. SecureDrop may protect a source whose information later proves misleading, and press-freedom protections inevitably cover media organizations with which donors disagree. But allowing governments to decide who qualifies for protection would destroy the protection itself.
Transparency and measurable impact
FPF publishes annual impact reports, audited financial statements, IRS Form 990 filings, and its strategic plan. It holds Candid’s Platinum Seal of Transparency and currently has a four-star Charity Navigator rating.
Its output figures are largely self-reported and should therefore not be treated as independent proof of effectiveness. Nevertheless, SecureDrop installations, open-source software, published court filings, training events, and Press Freedom Tracker records are observable outputs that can be checked outside the organization’s own narrative.
How to support them
FPF accepts:
- One-time and recurring donations
- Cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero, Stellar, and Zcash
- Stock transfers
- Donor-advised fund contributions
- Checks and qualified charitable distributions from U.S. retirement accounts
Donations are tax-deductible in the United States. The official donation page is:
Support Freedom of the Press Foundation
Final perspective
Freedom of the Press Foundation is one of the stronger candidates for donors interested in privacy, government transparency, whistleblower protection, and practical limits on state power.
Its advocacy is not ideologically neutral, and donors should evaluate its political commentary separately. But its core projects are more durable than political messaging: open-source security tools, direct journalist training, documented evidence of press-freedom violations, and legal action against government secrecy.
You do not have to trust every journalist or agree with every FPF article to recognize the value of infrastructure that prevents governments and powerful institutions from silently identifying sources, suppressing evidence, or criminalizing the act of publishing uncomfortable facts.
Supporting FPF is ultimately a wager that the public should be allowed to see the evidence before authorities decide what the truth is.
