Lawsuits against Iowa paper and settlement with ABC signal beginning of aggressive legal action to silence critics
Donald Trump and his allies have started to wage a campaign against media organisations in the US that are critical of the president-elect by launching lawsuits that media experts warn are designed to stifle dissent and potentially put them out of business.
The tactic appears to be to aggressively pursue legal action against news organisations – which Trump has long dubbed “enemies of the people” – by asking for often hefty sums in damages. The cases are launched even if the odds of success sometimes appear long, because even an unsuccessful court action can be expensive for a cash-strapped media company and act as a deterrent.
“The recent spate of lawsuits that he has filed, and his public threat to ‘straighten out the press’, do seem to signal an increased effort by Trump and his allies to go after the press through lawsuits,” said Anna Diakun, staff attorney and managing attorney, fellowship program, for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
Last week alone saw several developments that deeply worry defenders of press freedom in the US.
Trump sued Iowa pollster J Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register newspaper for alleged “brazen election interference” in a civil suit that shocked free speech defenders.
One advocate said the suit was potentially “the most appalling example” of Trump’s efforts to weaponize courts against opponents.
The survey in question, published days before the election, had shown Democratic opponent Kamala Harris besting Trump by three points in a state that had long been considered a slam-dunk for him. Selzer was proved wrong and Trump later cruised to victory in Iowa with more than 55% of the vote.
Despite winning handily – suggesting the poll had no impact on him whatsoever – Trump still went on the attack.
Trump sued under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, claiming Selzer and the newspaper flouted a law meant to protect people from “fraud”. Trump’s suit said the action was necessary “to deter defendants and their fellow radicals from continuing to act with corrupt intent in releasing polls manufactured for the purpose of skewing election results in favor of Democrats”.
But the Iowa suit came after several other Trump legal actions against the press. ABC News reached a $15m settlement with Trump on 14 December – agreeing to pay a foundation and museum to be established by the president-elect, and publicly apologizing – following a defamation suit he filed earlier in 2024.
The suit stemmed from network star George Stephanopoulos’s mistaken comments in an interview that Trump had been found “liable for rape” in a civil lawsuit brought by Elle columnist E Jean Carroll. The jury in fact determined that Trump “sexually abused” Carroll, but did not find that he had raped her.
“We are pleased that the parties have reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit on the terms in the court filing,” an ABC News spokesman said of the suit, according to the Associated Press.
Trump is also suing CBS News over Kamala Harris’ interview on 60 Minutes, alleging it had been deceptively edited and also pursuing a copyright action against publisher Simon & Schuster relating to audio recordings of the author’s interviews with him.
Trump has previously said he wants to “take a strong look” at US libel laws, describing them as a “sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values and American fairness”.
“That is the most recent and in one sense, the most appalling example of Mr Trump’s efforts to use the judicial system to punish his critics,” Floyd Abrams, the famed first amendment attorney, said of the Iowa suit.
“It’s not just that there are no damages that he can plausibly state in such a case,” Abrams said, noting that Trump won the election, which undermines claims that he suffered as a result of an incorrect poll. “It appears to be nothing more or less than an effort to punish the newspaper and its pollster, because they dared to take a position which turned out to be inaccurate.”
“He is seeking to punish them, he is seeking to harm them, because in his mind, they harmed him by making him worry and leading the pollsters around the country to think the races would be a lot closer than it turned out to be … There’s certainly no justifiable basis for such a lawsuit,” Abrams said.
Several first amendment experts said that ABC’s decision to settle could foster still more attacks on the press.
“His recent settlement victory against ABC is particularly concerning, because it may embolden Trump to file any number of similar lawsuits hoping for the same result,” said Diakun.
Even completely meritless lawsuits present serious risks to the media.
“They often take up considerable time and resources, and can threaten the survival of smaller news outlets that are already struggling to make ends meet,” Diakun said. “Some news organizations may decide to settle frivolous suits to avoid staggering litigation costs and spending months or years defending against the suit.”
“Because of this, these suits will have a significant chilling effect on news outlets. Even the threat of legal action may lead some to self-censor, rather than risk retribution. This is no accident – it appears to be Trump’s goal.”
“The bottom line is that Trump’s lawsuits against media organizations – and his threats to file more – are a danger to press freedom.”
Roy S Gutterman, director of the Newhouse School’s Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, expressed similar sentiments and pointed out how important America’s media and the freedom of the press were to the healthy functioning of civic society.
“The lawsuits and threats certainly seem like a continuation of Trump’s litigiousness,” Gutterman said. “The difference, now, is that he secured a settlement and looks like he’s transitioning into an administration with broad support from the other branches of government. The system of checks and balances inherent to our governing system seems to be tilted.”
Gutterman said that ABC’s decision to settle “must have looked like a smart thing to do from ABC’s perspective”. This could make it harder for other press, however.
“This could also give impetus to others to sue media outlets hoping for a settlement,” Gutterman said. “There is concern that the fear of being sued might discourage other media outlets from aggressively pursuing the news that might be critical of the administration. That is a real concern.”
The Des Moines Register spokesperson Lark-Marie Anton said they “believe this lawsuit is without merit” and that the paper acknowledged that this poll didn’t reflect Trump’s final margin over Harris. Anton also said they released the survey’s “full demographics, cross tabs, weighted and unweighted data, as well as a technical explanation from pollster Ann Selzer.”
“We stand by our reporting on the matter and will vigorously defend our first amendment rights,” Anton said.
The Guardian contacted Trump’s legal and communications team to ask whether they had comment on concerns that lawsuits against media organizations could have a chilling effect on free speech.
Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesperson, said in an email: “President Trump will continue to hold those who have committed, and are committing wrongdoings, accountable for blatantly false and dishonest reporting, which serves no public interest and only seeks to interfere in our elections on behalf of political partisans.”
One of Depp’s loser fans is out spreading the misinformation that going public with abuse claims is defamation. In all cases, you have a first amendment protected right as an American to say ANYTHING that is true about any person or govt entity that you want to. In any form of media, in print, spoken, in person, in email, on the internet, on a billboard. Since women are human too, women have human rights.
In this specific case, this “going public years ago” that people are referring to is when she filed for a temporary protective order around the time of her divorce. The reason she needed to do this is because the time a woman in a DV situation is most likely to be k!lled is when she leaves. And the reason I said woman, is because 99/100 times if someone in a heterosexual partnership dies related to DV, it’s the woman. Don’t let anybody “this goes both ways” this shit because when it comes to life-threatening violence it’s so vanishingly rare that women commit it that someone is gaslighting you to suggest you need to speak in gender neutral terms. DV statistics do not show anything neutral or even-handed about who is committing life-threatening physical violence and who is on the receiving end of it.
It is not defamation, libel or slander to say someone abused you if they abused you. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It’s not defamation, libel and slander if, as a result of your true claims of abuse, they lose EVERYTHING. If their boss fires them, their landlord puts them on the street, their clients drop them, their university expels them. No matter WHAT happens to them, you have committed no civil tort by telling the truth.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for reconsideration of a landmark First Amendment precedent, criticizing the 1964 decision that the Constitution creates a higher barrier for public figures to claim libel.
His position echoes complaints of President Donald Trump, who has called for libel laws to be reconsidered in light of news stories about him, said CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck.
For 27 years this individual has been known not saying much from the bench.
Yeah just wanted to second the anons on this - the bar for slander/libel is extremely high - not only do they have to prove you said/wrote it, but they also have to prove you knew it was a lie when you did, and that you intentionally used this lie with the intent to hurt the person. And the bar is even higher for public figures. Which isn't to say that Trump or whoever else couldn't sue you, but there's essentially 0 chance they would win.
Reince Priebus says Trump has "looked at" amending Constitution to sue journalists
President Donald Trump's chief of staff, former Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, told ABC News' This Week the administration is still looking into fulfilling Trump's threat to "open up" libel laws and go after journalists.
Priebus responded in the affirmative when host Jonathan Karl asked whether the president was considering a constitutional amendment to do so — you know, pulling one over on that whole First Amendment thing.
The president has limited authority to go after journalists for critical coverage because there are no federal libel laws, and state statutes on the matter are broadly difficult to sue under, as the ACLU noted.
A constitutional amendment to quash negative coverage of the administration would require a supermajority in both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states, and is thus very unlikely to happen. Read more (4/30/17)
anon asking about defamation and trump: look into how slander and libel cases are different for public figures vs private figures. iirc it's much more difficult to do them to a public figure, which trump is. my media law class was ages ago so i can't give an exact answer either but i'm p sure there's a lot more freedom with regards to discussing public figures
Can I get in trouble for stating a fact about an existing person? I know what slander and defamation of character are, but if I mentioned Trump in my book and called him racist can legally anything be done against me since its like.... true
I have a sort of similar question here to which I also gave a probably unsatisfactory answer. As not-a-lawyer and someone who has no particular understanding or knowledge of the law, I’m not going to give you legal advice or claim to have any idea on what side of the law you would stand, but the risk-averse part of me says, probably better stay away from something like that, because while I and lots of other people agree that Trump is a racist, it’s not exactly an objective fact in the way that, say, his weight would be. And while he doesn’t sue nearly as many people as he threatens to (and he’s not going to sue ever person who has ever called him a racist, because that would probably take him the rest of his life), he is still the president of the United States and an insanely wealthy human being, and you might just be better off not putting yourself in that position.
Can you base a character off of someone you knew who was abusive? Like, I know there are libel laws and stuff but could there really be a situation where someone goes to court and says, "hey, how dare you write about that time I was abusive, I'm suing you." (I know you're not a lawyer, you can't give legal advice, I'm really just asking out of curiosity.)
So, first, as you said, I’m not a lawyer, and 100% not giving legal advice here. But this is actually an interesting question I didn’t previously know the answer to, so I did some research.
As I understand it, libel laws cover that you falsely stated that someone real did something bad. If they actually did something bad, I don’t think it’s covered in those laws. That being said, it’s still generally better as a general rule of thumb to explicitly include real (living) people in your work.
Also keep in mind that this is only relevant for published works. You can write whatever you want in the privacy of your computer/notebook/random piece of paper.
Rights of Writers seems to answer your question with more detail and authority here.
