Freedom of the Press — Or Freedom from Responsibility?

Episode summary:

Freedom of the press is vital to our republic, but it does not give corporate media a free pass to endanger the president. In this daily update, we look at how The New York Times handled leaks about the new Air Force One — and why its timing mattered as President Trump flew home through an overseas conflict. We walk through the reporting timeline, the national security stakes, and what John Adams, Ronald Reagan, and Scripture all say about responsible speech. In the end, we argue that when the press “lets loose the fire,” it is the country — and maybe the Times itself — that gets burned.

What you’ll learn / Key moments

• 00:01 – Does freedom of speech imply freedom of responsibility?
• 00:16 – Why the New York Times reporting on the Qatar‑gifted Air Force One matters.
• 00:52 – The reporting timeline that exposed a sitting president’s vulnerabilities mid‑flight.
• 01:25 – John Adams, Ronald Reagan, and the biblical warning about the tongue as a flame of fire.
• 01:56 – How an “irresponsible press” can put national security — and itself — at risk.

What you can do

If you care about a press that tells the truth without putting America in danger, share this episode with friends, family, and neighbors who follow national security and media issues. Join the conversation on our site and social channels about where the line should be between exposing government failure and protecting the commander in chief. Most of all, stay engaged, stay informed, and help us keep holding powerful institutions — including the press — accountable.

Does Freedom of Speech imply Freedom of Responsibility?

This is the Wilmington Standard Daily Update for Monday July 13, 2026.

Several reporters from the New York Times are under subpoena to reveal their sources about recent articles about the new Air Force One jet gifted us from Qatar.  According to NPR:

On Wednesday, the newspaper published an anonymously sourced story that the Secret Service urged President Trump to leave the recent NATO summit in Turkey on an older version of Air Force One instead of the Boeing 747 donated by Qatar last year because of security concerns. The following day, the Times reported, again citing anonymous sources, that the gifted plane lacked "defensive countermeasures that were security features of the old model, including its advanced antimissile capabilities."

Security concerns about the plane the Leader of the Free World uses is a valid story.  Air Force One is designed to be the mobile Oval Office, and needs to be able to protect the president.  Its defensive abilities must be top notch – and highly classified – because the president is always a target – no matter what party he is from.  If the plane cannot do its job – for whatever reason – the press needs to shine on a light on it. 

That is the value of a free press.

The reporting timeline is the problem.  President Trump left Turkey on July 8^th – riding the old Air Force 1 – the same day the New York Times published its first piece.  The President flew to the United Kingdom, boarded the new plane – and was enroute home when the Grey Lady published the second piece – hghlighting the defects in greater detail.  In short, the New York Times was exposing the vulnerabilities of a President in the middle of an overseas conflict while he was in the air – in real time.

That is the hallmark of an irresponsible press.

We need a free press.  John Adams declared “the liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.”  Ronald Reagan reiterated that by saying the press is essential to our continued success in self-government.

Yet we also need a responsible press.  The Book of James warns us that the tongue is flame of fire.  Used properly, our words and freedom of speech – and freedom of press – can and have achieved good things.  Used improperly – and irresponsibly – our press can cause even greater damage.

The New York Times should have known the leak was not about security.  It was not about trying to protect the president.  And they should have known that the timing of their reporting put a sitting US President in danger.  They properly should have held the story for the sake of national security – and were asked to do so.

But instead, the New York Times chose to let loose the fire.  And they will probably get burned.

For the Wilmington Standard, I’m Reuel Sample.  Thanks for listening.