A bill prompted by controversy over Luigi Mangione supporters would make it easier for New York City to suspend or revoke press credentials.
By Michele Evans
NY Weekly Record
September 13, 2026
Categories: New York City | Media | Press Freedom | City Council | Independent Journalism
NEW YORK — New York City lawmakers want to lower the amount of evidence the city must produce before suspending or revoking a journalist’s press credential.
The proposal comes after several supporters of Luigi Mangione obtained city press cards and used them to cover his criminal case. Their credentials drew attention after some of them made inflammatory statements about UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, whom Mangione was accused of killing.
City Council Speaker Julie Menin told FOX 5 New York that Council Member Chris Banks was sponsoring legislation intended to address what she called the problem of the “Luigi Mangione fangirl.”
The bill goes further than that particular controversy. If passed, the new evidentiary standard would apply to the city’s press credential system.
Int. 1024-2026 was introduced September 10 by Council Members Banks, Carmen De La Rosa, Lincoln Restler and Inna Vernikov. It has been referred to the Committee on Governmental Operations, State & Federal Legislation.
Current law requires the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment, known as MOME, to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that suspending or revoking a press credential is justified.
The proposed law would replace that requirement with “a preponderance of the evidence.”
In practical terms, the city would have an easier case to prove.
The bill would leave an important safeguard intact. A credential could still be suspended or revoked only after a hearing before the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings.
But the evidence MOME needs to prevail at that hearing would be reduced.
The proposal also directs MOME to review the rules governing applications, denials, suspensions and revocations and determine whether those rules need to be changed.
That provision deserves close attention from independent journalists.
Why New York Changed the System in 2021
Until 2022, the New York Police Department administered New York City’s press credentials.
The City Council voted in 2021 to transfer that authority to MOME. Local Law 46 established procedures governing applications, denials, suspensions and revocations.
At the time, Council members described the legislation as a press-freedom measure.
The law required that the credentialing system be administered in a way that promotes a “free and independent press.” It also established the hearing process that Int. 1024 now seeks to modify.
The clear-and-convincing evidence requirement currently in the law was part of those protections.
Five years later, the Council is proposing to lower it.
The Council should explain why.
How many press-card suspension or revocation cases has MOME brought since the current system took effect? How many failed because MOME could not satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard? What conduct does the city believe it cannot adequately address under the existing rules?
Those answers would help establish whether there is a problem with the current evidentiary standard.
The Fight Over Who Counts as Press
The controversy also exposes an old question made harder by the way journalism has changed.
Who is a journalist?
New York City’s own credentialing rules do not limit press cards to reporters employed by newspapers or television networks.
MOME recognizes freelancers and self-employed journalists. Its rules cover people gathering and reporting news for newspapers, magazines, books, television, radio and Internet-based publications.
Applicants have to document qualifying newsgathering work. Working for a large media company is not a requirement.
That matters when public officials describe some credential holders as illegitimate journalists.
A reporter for a national television network is easy to identify. So is a newspaper staff reporter carrying a credential issued through an established newsroom.
The lines become less obvious with a freelancer, YouTube journalist, independent publisher or reporter building an audience through social media.
Some will produce excellent journalism. Some won’t.
The city still has to administer one set of rules.
Political beliefs also create difficult territory. Journalists have opinions. Some make them public. Others work for publications with identifiable political viewpoints. Independent reporters may openly advocate for issues they also cover.
An offensive statement can damage a journalist’s credibility without necessarily settling the legal question of whether the government should take away a press credential.
The distinction is important because government officials control the credential.
Mamdani Raised the Same Concern
Mayor Zohran Mamdani criticized the decision to issue press cards to three Mangione supporters in May.
He also said the mayor should not personally decide who qualifies as a journalist.
“I, as the mayor, should not be deciding who is considered a journalist worthy of a pass and who is not,” Mamdani told reporters.
His comments identified the problem the city has to solve.
New York needs standards for credentials that grant access unavailable to the general public. It also needs a system that does not depend upon whether a government official approves of a reporter or the reporter’s work.
Those interests can conflict.
What a NYC Press Card Actually Does
A New York City press card does not give someone permission to practice journalism.
MOME states plainly that a credential is not required to work as a journalist or engage in newsgathering in New York City.
The card provides access.
Depending on the circumstances, credentialed reporters may cross police, fire or other official barriers while covering breaking news. Credentials are also used for access to some city events and locations reserved for members of the press.
For reporters covering courts, crime, protests, fires, government and public safety, that access can make a substantial difference in what they are able to see and report.
That makes the rules for taking it away important.
Current regulations already provide grounds for suspension and revocation. MOME can pursue action over conduct including material misrepresentations or omissions in an application, repeated suspensions, and use of a credential while it is suspended or revoked.
Int. 1024 does not create a provision allowing MOME to revoke a card simply because someone holds an unpopular political opinion. It does not create a new statutory definition of “legitimate journalist.” It does not eliminate the OATH hearing.
The proposed change is narrower.
It lowers the government’s burden of proof.
That is enough to warrant scrutiny.
Questions the Council Should Answer
The public discussion surrounding Int. 1024 has concentrated heavily on Mangione supporters. A law governing New York City press credentials will remain after that controversy ends.
Before changing the standard, the Council should produce evidence showing why the existing one is inadequate.
MOME should also explain what it will examine during the rules review required by the bill and whether changes to eligibility or disciplinary criteria are being considered.
Independent journalists have a particular reason to follow that process.
New York City’s current rules recognize that a reporter does not need a corporate employer to be a journalist. Any revision should preserve objective standards that can be applied to a freelancer and a network correspondent alike.
The controversy involving the Mangione supporters can be addressed on its facts.
The legislation should be judged by what it would allow the city to do in the next case, with the next journalist, covering the next controversy.
The government does not always get to choose who covers it.
Leave a Reply