Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The press must resist Trump’s bullying lawsuits

The press must resist Trump’s bullying lawsuits

President-elect Donald Trump leaves after their meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France on December 07, 2024. (Photo by Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Photo by Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu via Getty Images

In his first week as a federal judge, Murray Gurfein was assigned the biggest case of his life.

He’d just been nominated to the Southern District of New York by President Richard Nixon in April 1971, and confirmed by the Senate in May when the Pentagon Papers case landed on his desk.


Nixon had told Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist to order the New York Times and the Washington Post to stop publication of the damaging report that revealed previous administrations’ attempts to cover up their losing efforts in the Vietnam War.

Both papers refused, so Nixon sought an injunction to keep the papers from publishing.

But Gurfein, despite being appointed by Nixon just weeks earlier, declined, writing: “The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”

Nixon, of course, would appeal Gurfein’s decision, and before the Supreme Court could hear the case, 15 other newspapers received copies of the report and published it, with the idea that the only way to uphold the First Amendment and protect the right to publish…was to publish.

In June, the Post and the Times won their case in the Supreme Court, and Nixon’s attempt at chilling the press failed — but only because the newspapers refused to capitulate.

Fast-forward half a century, and it feels like the courage the press showed then was all for naught.

An incoming President Donald Trump has already inflicted a Nixonian choke hold on the press, and before he’s even been sworn into office.

He sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation, claiming that he was inaccurately described as having been found liable for “rape,” instead of “sexual assault” by a civil jury — a distinction even the judge in the case said was meaningless.

He’s suing Bob Woodward and Simon & Schuster for $49 million for publishing audio tapes of interviews Trump gave in 2019 and 2020.

He’s suing CBS News for a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris in which Trump argues CBS deceptively edited it to make her appear “coherent and decisive.”

And this week, he sued the Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer for a poll that showed him losing in a state that he ended up winning by 13 points.

Now, to be clear, none of these are good cases for Trump.

Misusing legal terms, as Stephanopoulos did, isn’t defamation. Publishing tapes of an interview you agreed to isn’t illegal. Nor is editing interviews like “60 Minutes” did. And bad polls that don’t come true are not a valid basis for a lawsuit.

All of these entities should rest soundly and confidently knowing the First Amendment protects them from Trump’s authoritarian impulses.

But one has already surrendered. ABC settled with Trump to the tune of $15 million, and, adding insult to injury, agreed to publish a groveling apology note on behalf of the news outlet and Stephanopoulos.

Why would a company like Disney, which owns ABC and has the best lawyers money can buy, agree to give away $15 million on a case it most certainly would have won?

Corporate greed and spinelessness.

As The Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last put it:

“I’d bet the milk money that Bob Iger — the CEO of Disney and one of the most important corporate executives in America — made the final call on settling with Trump. Because this is a decision that affects the entire corporation’s relationship to the federal government.

And while it might be against the interest of ABC News to sell out its journalists, it’s very much in the interest of the Walt Disney Company to be on good terms with a president who is open about punishing his enemies and rewarding his friends.”

It’s gross, but not surprising, that a giant conglomerate like Disney would want to do favors for an incoming administration that’s threatening to punish its enemies. But it’s downright disgusting that one that owns a news outlet would wholly surrender to baseless threats against press freedom, while throwing good journalists under the bus in the process.

Even though Trump likely knows these lawsuits are without merit, for him the process is the punishment. And with ABC’s capitulation, he’ll be emboldened to do it again and again.

“We have to straighten out the press,” he said. “Our press is very corrupt, almost as corrupt as our elections.”

Of course, just like our elections, the press is not corrupt. But if others surrender, the press will have been corrupted — by Trump himself.

So to those in Trump’s crosshairs, currently or in the future, remember the words of Judge Gurfein:

“A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”

(S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.)


Read More

A hand casting a vote in a ballot box for an election

A hand casting a vote in a ballot box for an election in the Kentucky, USA

Getty Images

Kentucky’s Independent Voters Are Growing. Why Are They Still Shut Out?

Kentucky’s political establishment has just been handed a number it should not be able to ignore.

In July, more Kentucky voters registered as independent or “other” than registered as Republicans and Democrats combined. More than 8,500 Kentuckians registered to vote, and the “other” category grew by 2,530 voters, compared with 2,483 new Republicans and a decline of 32 Democrats.

Keep ReadingShow less
US Supreme Court

US Supreme Court, Washington, DC

Getty Images

If You Can’t Win, Disrupt

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a decision overturning the stay issued by Judge Talwani of the US District Court for Massachusetts. The case was brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia to enjoin Executive Order No. 14399, issued by President Trump. The Executive Order (EO) was 90 pages long and is entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections”.

The purpose of the EO according to its proponents is to (1) enhance the verification of the citizenship status of the voting public and to explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or vote in federal elections; (2) to utilize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program (SAVE) to assist in verifying identity and voter eligibility. (3) Establish the transmission of state citizenship lists and prioritization of investigations and prosecutions related to election fraud. (4) Require the US Postal Service (USPS) to issue new rules on mail-in and absentee ballots. (5) Have the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of the SSA, and the Postmaster General, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, to effectuate all relevant aspects of the implementation of the Order. (6) Enforcement authority for this EO is vested in the Attorney General.

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol building in Washington, DC

Government reform

Getty Images

Why One Young Engineer Rejects the Two‑Party Binary

When Joshua Summers was in elementary school, his dad would come to class to perform science experiments. One time, they did an experiment to show how lightning bugs lit up.

“That was pretty cool,” he says. There was never one moment that drew him to science, but it may have helped that his mother was a nurse and his father was a mathematician.

Keep ReadingShow less
people in a boardroom


Happy female entrepreneur with colleagues sitting at a desk in an office

Getty images

Understanding The Dissolution of Federal DEI Offices and Initiatives: Debate and Implications

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Background

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a buzzword often used in political spaces, and its implementations, or lack thereof, have repercussions on many groups. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts are organizational policies and initiatives that aim to equitably distribute opportunities and to create accepting workplaces for marginalized populations. These policies create hiring and recruitment guidelines to hire, retain, and promote individuals from those backgrounds. Supporters of these policies argue they are necessary in driving meaningful social progress, while critics argue they subordinate the role of merit in awarding opportunities.

Keep ReadingShow less