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

President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Money Trumps Life

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly at U.N. Headquarters on September 22, 2026 in New York City.

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

When Money Trumps Life

Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump showed the world just how little he values human life. In a single speech, he rattled off a laundry list of “hoaxes” to write off: climate change, AI, “Russia hoax,” “Ukraine hoax,” and more. Climate change, AI, and modern warfare all pose existential threats to civilization as we know it, and yet our president seems hellbent on gaslighting our fears while accelerating problems that threaten our survival. What would make a person behave in such a self-sabotaging way? Well, perhaps we should, as they say, follow the money.

Earlier this month, the UN warned that Earth is already 1.4°C hotter than before the industrial age and set to blow past the 1.5°C limit in the next few years. The World Health Organization projects that such warming will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths a year starting in 2030. Any leader who values human life should recognize this as the existential threat it is and change course. Instead, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the UN's founding climate treaty, and his EPA scrapped the scientific finding underpinning federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the first six months since launching his war in Iran, Trump's nine largest oil and gas holdings gained up to $4.4 million.

Keep ReadingShow less
 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Pool/Getty Images

How Presidential Primetime Addresses Shape Public Trust in Democratic Institutions

A question still being studied is the effects on public trust when the head of the Executive casts doubt on the institutions that run elections, enforce laws, and decide legal disputes. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He is the commander in chief of a nation #1 in nominal gross domestic product as well as #1 in military power, budget, and spending as of 2026. The actions he takes spew ripple effects across the world and follow many generations. A way you can measure the executive's power can also be measured in how much influence his speeches have on the markets, opinions of the masses, news outlets, lawmakers, social media reactions, etc. His framing of an issue can shape the next day’s political conversation.

These conversations become extremely dangerous/consequential when discussing a principle as embedded in our country as Democracy. In his July primetime speech, Trump continued to pedal the claims about election security and argued for stricter voting rules. He continued to portray the country as facing a moment of corruption and uncertainty, followed by presenting himself as the one prepared to restore order. The address continued with repeated claims about his loss in the 2020 election that have not been supported by the evidence compiled over years of investigation by many parties. Professional reviews, audits, and courts have yet to find significant evidence of foul play substantial enough to influence the outcome of that election.

Keep ReadingShow less