Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Minnesota Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

"Fake news." "Enemy of the people." For much of his first administration, President-elect Donald Trump waged a war of words against the nation's press corps.

On Monday night, a troubling lawsuit filed by Trump against a newspaper just to Minnesota's south ― the Des Moines Register, along with its pollster J. Ann Selzer — strongly suggests that the incoming president will not only continue this campaign but escalate it against those who report information he doesn't like. Shortly before the November election, Selzer's results erroneously showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump in the Hawkeye State.

The U.S. Congress should note the lawsuit with alarm and respond by putting in place what safeguards it can to shield journalists from tactics designed to intimidate them and the sources they work with. Fortunately, a historic bill called the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act that has bipartisan support in Congress would be a significant step forward, though other protective measures are also imperative.

The PRESS Act has already cleared the Republican-controlled House. The Senate should work quickly in the current session's waning hours to pass the bill and get it to President Joe Biden for his signature. Thankfully, influential senators like Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar, the daughter of a former Star Tribune columnist, understands the urgency.

"A free press is essential to democracy, and journalists must be able to do their work free of fear from undue government interference. Passing this bipartisan legislation is critical to protect the First Amendment rights of journalists as they work to keep the public informed. That's why I will continue to fight to get this done," Klobuchar said on Tuesday.

The PRESS Act is essentially a federal version of the reporter "shield" laws that most states, including Minnesota, have. The laws provide protections for reporters who work with whistleblowers and others to make public information to hold government accountable. The protections typically prevent journalists from being forced to turn over notes or other information, such as the identity of anonymous sources.

The reason that a federal version of these is needed for a simple reason: "State shield laws only cover state-level law enforcement. We need a federal press shield law to protect journalists and their sources from government surveillance," said Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA, on Monday.

The PRESS Act has an impressive list of bipartisan backers. The Senate's lead author is Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat. Senate supporters include two influential Republicans, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah.

Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California Republican, is the lead author of the House's version. Cosponsors for the House bill are almost evenly split politically. But two cosponsors in particular show the PRESS Act's breadth of support: Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who led the second Trump impeachment effort, and Rep. Darrell Issa, a hard-nosed California Republican and businessman who once chaired the House's influential Oversight Committee.

The bipartisanship is sensible and responsible. Ensuring that whistleblowers and others who can expose wrongdoing can continue to share information is essential for government oversight and accountability.

Wyden, the son of a reporter, recently asked the U.S. Senate to follow the House's lead and pass the PRESS Act by unanimous consent. But Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton objected. "The PRESS Act would undermine our national security and turn liberal reporters into a protected class," Cotton said during a Dec. 11 Senate floor speech, according to a UPI report.

Trump also urged Congressional Republicans to "kill this bill" in a social media post last month.

Cotton's objections are ill-informed. The PRESS Act would protect journalists from all news sources, not just ones he deems "liberal." In fact, a former Fox News reporter's legal travails serve up a recent example of why the PRESS Act is needed. Last spring, a federal judge "held veteran journalist Catherine Herridge in contempt of court, fining her $800 a day for refusing to divulge her sources for a series of stories published in 2017 while she was a correspondent at Fox News," CNN has reported.

"The PRESS Act is not a partisan issue; it's an American one," said Caroline Hendrie, executive director for the Society of Professional Journalists. "The bipartisan bill embraces a broad definition of who qualifies for protection against meritless government invasion of journalist-source confidentiality. We urge support for the PRESS Act ... the public's right to know hangs in the balance."

This week, Wyden also pointed out that "past administrations, both Democratic and Republican," have exploited the lack of a federal shield law to curtail freedom of the press. "This bill protects the act of journalism, whether it be by conservative publications, liberal ones or citizen journalists publishing on Substack. It's not based on where a person works, it's what they do," he said in a statement provided by his office.

While Cotton derailed the PRESS Act's easiest path forward, there's still hope that the bill could get across the finish line this year, possibly attached to other moving, must-pass legislation. Klobuchar's involvement is encouraging. She was recently elected to the Senate Democratic leadership's No. 3 spot. Her commitment and clout offer hope about the PRESS Act's fate.

Other measures that would deter lawsuits aimed at harassing or intimidating journalists (Trump's consumer fraud lawsuit against the Register falls in that category) are also needed. But passing the PRESS Act at this moment is a solid start.