First amendment question? Not really.

If Assange were looking for targeted information on a specific story/subject he was attempting to cover, that *could* be journalism.

He's just took a jackhammer to national security, and published data w/o interp.

washingtonpost.com/local/legal-is…

A journalist would consider the ramifications of the information they publish, and carefully curate what they release to minimize risk.

Assange just threw everything in a big pile without any consideration of the ultimate benefit:value ratio of that info becoming public...

Unless Assange is dumber than Trump, he would know that info, when dumped, would be of more use to hostile foreign states than of any use to allow American citizens to ensure transparency or accountability.

So, no - this isn't a first amendment issue... because it isn't journalism.

Regardless why he started, the overwhelming evidence shows Assange isn't a journalist: every piece of information he published without analysis and explication, without interpretation of coded shorthand,

those do not count as 'journalism' - they're not presenting the true meaning and impact of those words towards their intended audience.

And by sheer volume, the bulk of Wikileaks is a dump for stolen govt info, putting it in public so foreign nation-states - who know what to look for - can extract meaning from it to use to their own advantage, while American citizens can't.

And that, friends, is espionage.