U.S. Marshals Want Court to Ban Reporter from Discussing His Own Arrest After He Discovered BOLO Alert Targeting His Journalism

Lafayette, Louisiana — In a stunning escalation of what civil liberties advocates are calling “government retaliation against the press,” federal prosecutors are asking a court to prohibit journalist Matthew Reardon from discussing evidence in his own criminal case—evidence that documents how U.S. Marshals placed him under surveillance for doing journalism.

The case reads like a dystopian thriller: A journalist files a Freedom of Information Act request. He discovers federal agents issued a “Be On the Lookout” (BOLO) alert targeting him for documenting government activities at public courthouses. He peacefully protests this surveillance on courthouse steps. Federal marshals arrest him, seize his recording equipment, and charge him with “making loud noise.” Now, those same federal agents want a judge to ban him from talking about any of it.

“They’re Trying to Memory-Hole Their Own Misconduct”

“This is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent,” said Matthew Reardon. “They surveilled me for journalism. They arrested me for protesting that surveillance. They prosecuted me for protected speech. And now they want to silence me from reporting on their own actions.”

The protective order motion, filed October 15, 2025, would prohibit Reardon from:

• Possessing copies of discovery materials about his arrest
• Discussing those materials publicly
• Publishing analysis of government conduct
• Retaining any records after his case concludes

The government claims the restrictions are necessary for “courthouse security.” But Reardon’s legal team calls that justification “pretextual” and points to a damning timeline.

The Four-Phase Suppression Campaign

Court documents reveal a systematic pattern:

PHASE ONE: SURVEILLANCE
U.S. Marshals issue BOLO alert targeting Reardon for journalism activities at federal facilities. No threats. No attempted entry to restricted areas. Just journalism.

PHASE TWO: ARREST
When Reardon peacefully protests the surveillance on August 25, 2025, Marshal Hayden Nugent arrests him and seizes his camera equipment—mid-livestream, in front of his 3,000+ YouTube subscribers.

PHASE THREE: PROSECUTION
Federal prosecutors charge Reardon under regulations prohibiting “loud noise” and “obstruction” for conduct that video evidence shows was peaceful and non-disruptive.

PHASE FOUR: SILENCING
On the same day a magistrate judge indicates she’ll consolidate Reardon’s constitutional challenge with trial, the government files a motion seeking to prohibit him from discussing evidence that supports his First Amendment defense.

Government’s Own Actions Undermine Security Claims

Perhaps most tellingly, the government’s own conduct contradicts its security concerns:

• They filmed him too: A federal security officer recorded Reardon’s protest on what appears to be a personal cellphone. If recording near courthouses threatens security, why did government personnel do exactly that?
• They waited 20+ minutes: If Reardon’s camera created an urgent security threat, why did marshals wait over twenty minutes before addressing it?
• They disclosed the BOLO through FOIA: The government determined that information about its surveillance of Reardon could be publicly released. Now they claim that same information compromises security?
• They’re selective about enforcement: Federal cases routinely involve discovery of courthouse security footage, marshal communications, and operational procedures. The government doesn’t seek protective orders in those cases. Only when the defendant is a journalist publishing critical content.

“This Is About Silencing Criticism, Not Protecting Security”

The government’s motion explicitly references Reardon’s YouTube publications and his stated intent to “stress test the system”—revealing that content, not security, drives their concern.

“YouTube is full of videos about courthouse exteriors, federal law enforcement activities, and First Amendment audits,” notes Reardon’s opposition brief. “The government doesn’t seek protective orders against those publishers. The selective concern about Mr. Reardon’s videos demonstrates that viewpoint, not security, motivates this motion.”

The proposed order would prohibit Reardon from discussing:

• Communications about why marshals placed him under surveillance
• Emails between marshals and judges about his journalism 
• Video footage of his arrest (which he livestreamed publicly)
• Analysis of whether his prosecution violates the First Amendment

None of this information poses security threats. All of it documents potential constitutional violations that the public has a compelling interest in knowing about.

Constitutional Scholars: “Textbook Prior Restraint”

Legal experts say the protective order motion represents one of the most aggressive attempts to silence a journalist in recent memory.

“Prior restraints on publication are ‘the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,'” explains Reardon’s legal brief, quoting Supreme Court precedent. “The government has failed to meet—indeed, has not even attempted to meet—the heavy burden required to justify such restrictions.”

To overcome the presumption against prior restraints, the government must demonstrate:

• Substantial likelihood of serious, specific harm
• Grave and imminent threats, not speculation
• No adequate alternatives to restriction
• Narrow tailoring to prevent only identified harm

The government has done none of this. Instead, it offers vague assertions about “courthouse security” and “operational methods” without identifying a single specific document requiring protection or explaining how Reardon’s journalism could facilitate any security threat.

The Bigger Picture: Criminalizing Journalism

This case is part of a disturbing trend of federal agencies targeting journalists who document government conduct.

Reardon operates We the People News, an investigative journalism platform with over 3,000 YouTube subscribers. His reporting focuses on government accountability, law enforcement activities, and constitutional rights in public spaces—exactly the type of journalism the First Amendment most vigorously protects.

“Citizens have a fundamental right to know when government agencies place journalists under surveillance,” Reardon’s legal team argues. “They have a right to know when federal officers arrest citizens for peaceful protest. They have a right to know when prosecutions target constitutionally protected expression.”

The protective order would eliminate that transparency by:

• Preventing Reardon from reporting on his own prosecution
• Requiring destruction of all materials after trial, eliminating any historical record
• Chilling other journalists who might document federal law enforcement
• Signaling that criticizing the government carries consequences

“If They Can Do This to Me, They Can Do It to Anyone”

Reardon remains defiant despite the escalating pressure.

“I’m a Marine veteran. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” he said. “I never imagined that oath would require defending the First Amendment against the very government I served.”

He continues publishing journalism about the case, including:

• FOIA responses documenting the BOLO surveillance
• Video footage of his arrest
• Analysis of government conduct
• Interviews with law enforcement officials

The government’s motion explicitly objects to these publications—proving, Reardon argues, that suppression of criticism is the true objective.

What Happens Next?

The court will rule on the protective order motion in the coming weeks. If granted, it would set a dangerous precedent: the government could silence any journalist simply by prosecuting them and then claiming discovery materials are “sensitive.”

If denied, it would reaffirm that the First Amendment means what it says—that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, and that government officials cannot exploit criminal prosecution to accomplish censorship they could never achieve directly.

“This isn’t just about me,” Reardon emphasizes. “This is about whether we still have a free press in America. This is about whether the government can surveil journalists, arrest them for protesting that surveillance, prosecute them for protected speech, and then silence them from reporting on any of it.”

“If they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone.”

Timeline of Events

• Pre-August 2025: U.S. Marshals issue BOLO alert targeting Reardon for journalism activities
• August 2025: Reardon discovers BOLO through FOIA request
• August 25, 2025: Reardon peacefully protests on courthouse steps; Marshal Hayden Nugent arrests him and seizes equipment
• September-October 2025: Reardon files motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds
• October 15, 2025: Same day magistrate indicates constitutional challenge will go to trial, government files protective order motion
• Present: Court considering whether to prohibit journalist from discussing his own prosecution

Public Response

“This is government censorship, plain and simple,” wrote one commenter. “They’re not protecting security—they’re protecting themselves from accountability.”

Another added: “They surveilled him for journalism. Arrested him for protesting. Prosecuted him for speech. Now they want to silence him. This is America in 2025?”

How You Can Help

• Share this article to raise awareness about government overreach
• Follow We the People News for updates on the case
• Contact your representatives about protecting press freedom
• Support independent journalism that holds government accountable

The Bottom Line

The federal government wants a court to prohibit a journalist from discussing evidence in his own criminal case—evidence that documents how they placed him under surveillance for doing journalism, arrested him for protesting that surveillance, and prosecuted him for protected speech.

They claim it’s about security. The timing, scope, and selective enforcement tell a different story.

This is about silencing criticism. This is about preventing accountability. This is about whether the First Amendment still means anything when the government decides a journalist has become inconvenient.

Matthew Reardon refuses to be silenced. The question is: will the courts protect his right to speak, or will they allow the government to complete its four-phase suppression campaign?

The answer will determine not just Reardon’s fate, but the future of press freedom in America.

---

EDITOR’S NOTE: We the People News will continue covering this case as it develops. Matthew Reardon is the founder and publisher of this outlet. This article represents our commitment to transparency and accountability—the very principles that led to his arrest.

UPDATE: This article will be updated as new developments occur in the case.

---

SHARE THIS STORY

🔴 BREAKING: Federal government seeks gag order to silence journalist who exposed their surveillance of his journalism. This is what tyranny looks like. #FreePress #FirstAmendment

[Share on Twitter] [Share on Facebook] [Share on Reddit] [Email this article]

---

We the People News | Investigative Journalism | Government Accountability
Subscribe for updates | Support independent journalism | Contact: [email protected]

---

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This article represents the editorial position of We the People News based on court documents, legal filings, and firsthand accounts. The government’s allegations have not been proven in court, and Matthew Reardon maintains his innocence and asserts his actions were constitutionally protected.