Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy
Getty Images, SvetaZi

How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy

In the Gilded Age of the millionaire, wealth signified ownership. The titans of old built railroads, monopolized oil, and bought their indulgences in yachts, mansions, and eventually, sports teams. A franchise was the crown jewel: a visible, glamorous token of success. But that era is over. Today’s billionaires, those who tower, not with millions but with unimaginable billions, find sports teams and other baubles beneath them. For this new aristocracy, the true prize is authorship of History (with a capital “H”) itself.

Once you pass a certain threshold of wealth, it seems, mere possessions no longer thrill. At the billionaire’s scale, you wake up in the morning searching for something grand enough to justify your own existence, something commensurate with your supposed singularly historical importance. To buy a team or build another mansion is routine, played, trite. To reshape the very framework of society—now that is a worthy stimulus. That is the game. And increasingly, billionaires are playing it.

Keep ReadingShow less
an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less