Rupert Murdoch should fight Trump's bogus lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal
Trump is suing Murdoch, News Corp., Dow Jones & Co., The Wall Street Journal's publisher and two reporters who wrote a bombshell article last week about a 'bawdy' Trump-penned birthday note to the late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump claims the letter is a 'fake,' and his lawyers in the suit accuse the Journal of 'glaring failures in journalistic ethics and standards of accurate reporting.' He wants the defendants to pay at least $20 billion.
Trump posted to Truth Social on Friday: 'I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his 'pile of garbage' newspaper, the WSJ. That will be an interesting experience!!!' The White House also booted the Journal from the press pool for an upcoming presidential visit to Scotland.
It's not hard to see why Trump thinks this could work. Disney and Paramount, rather than take Trump to court and win (as many legal experts said they would), paid off settlements of $15 million and $16 million, respectively, to end Trump's legal attacks against ABC News and CBS News. Just as some white shoe law firms and universities sheepishly bent the knee when faced with the Trump administration's punitive threats, Disney and Paramount helped solidify a model of corporate cowardice. These companies demonstrated they'd rather just pay off the shakedown artist in the White House than stand up for their news operations or the First Amendment.
A representative with Dow Jones, the Journal's parent company, said in a statement: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.'
To be sure, that's what they all say at first. But there are reasons for hope that the 94-year-old Murdoch could show more spine than his competitors.
Murdoch's Fox News and New York Post properties — for the most part — have been reliable MAGA cheerleaders in the decade since Trump's 2015 escalator ride announcing he was running for the Republican presidential nomination. But there have been cracks in their Trump devotion. The day after the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, the Post's editorial board put the blame on Trump. Murdoch, for his part, was so outraged at Trump's conduct that he wrote in an email to a Fox News executive that he wanted the network to 'make Trump a non person.'
Obviously, once the Republican base made it clear that there was literally nothing Trump could do that would make it vote for another contender, Fox News once again got in line behind Trump during the 2024 election. But Murdoch seems to understand that The Wall Street Journal is a much different property from a cable news network and a shouty local tabloid.
Murdoch never turned the Journal into a sensationalist, ideologically conservative outlet. Under his ownership, the Journal has maintained its well-deserved reputation for diligent, independent news reporting. And Murdoch knows there's a distinct value to that.
Even the Journal's typically Trump-adoring editorial board has repeatedly decried Trump's shakedowns of media outlets' parent companies. A WSJ editorial from June beseeched Paramount to resist the 'threat of regulatory disapproval' and instead 'win the legal case, vindicate its CBS journalists and the First Amendment, and trust that the FCC has enough integrity to operate as something more than the President's personal protection racket.'
If only Paramount shared the right-wing editorial board's ethical clarity on the matter. Oh, well.
Trump's history of bogus, speech-chilling lawsuits is well-documented. He's been filing them for decades, even once boasting that he knew he'd lose the cases but persisted with them because he knew they would make his perceived enemies' lives 'miserable.'
There are other reasons Murdoch should fight back against Trump's legal thuggery.
A judge last week threw out Trump's nearly $50 million lawsuit against legendary journalist Bob Woodward, and as my colleague Steve Benen noted, 'When Trump sued CNN and demanded $475 million, the case was thrown out; when he sued The Washington Post, the case was thrown out; and when he sued The New York Times, seeking $100 million, the case was thrown out.'
In a thread posted to X, attorney Andrew Fleischman noted some of the reasons Trump's lawsuit against Murdoch and the Journal is a complete mess. These include the fact that Trump's legal team filed the suit in Florida, which has an anti-SLAPP law to protect people menaced by such bogus suits. Fleischman also noted what he says is a procedural error by Trump's legal team that could lead to a dismissal and Trump's paying the Journal's legal fees.
Fleischman's conclusion: 'This lawsuit is meant to punish a newspaper for fair reporting. Any lawyer who tells you it has merit is talking out his ass.'
Murdoch's often factually challenged right-wing media empire has done incalculable damage to the American body politic — and continues to serve as a faithful echo chamber for MAGA rhetoric during Trump's reign of flagrant authoritarianism.
But the nonagenarian billionaire has a chance to stand up to a bully whom he clearly has no great personal affection for, and he has the chance to at least do his part in blocking Trump's rampage on the First Amendment.
This is a legacy-defining moment. If Murdoch stands up to Trump's cancel culture and his defamation suit lawfare — and vigorously defends The Wall Street Journal and its journalists — Murdoch can boast that, at least once, he did the right thing for America.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's visit to Scotland is in ‘public interest', says Chancellor
The visit of US President Donald Trump to Scotland is in the 'public interest', Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said. Mr Trump is due to touch down in Scotland on Friday evening ahead of a four-day visit, during which he will meet Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and First Minister John Swinney. His meeting with Sir Keir is seen as a chance to refine the UK-US trade deal which came into force last month. Speaking to journalists during a visit to the Rolls-Royce factory near Glasgow Airport on Friday morning, the Chancellor talked up the importance of the visit. 'It's in Britain's national interest to have strong relations with the US administration and as a result of both that long-term special relationship, but actually more importantly, the work that our Prime Minister Keir Starmer has done in building that relationship with President Trump has meant that we were the first country in the world to secure a trade deal,' she said. 'That has a tangible benefit for people here in Scotland, whether it is people working in the Scotch whisky industry or people working in the defence sector like here at Rolls-Royce, that trade deal means lower tariffs than any country in the world on things that we send to the US.' Ms Reeves dodged a question relating to senior ministers – including Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Scottish Secretary Ian Murray – supporting a motion when in opposition in 2019 calling for the president's first state visit to be cancelled and accusing him of 'misogyny, racism and xenophobia'. Mr Trump is expected to visit both of his golf clubs in Scotland – in South Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire – during the visit, which has been described as 'private' by the White House, before leaving on Tuesday. His presence is likely to spark protests across the country, with Police Scotland being forced to request aid from other forces to help increase manpower for the trip. In a carefully worded statement ahead of the visit, Mr Swinney said the focus it will bring to Scotland will allow people to have their voice heard on issues including 'war and peace, justice and democracy'. Speaking to the PA news agency on Friday, the First Minister said his meeting with Mr Trump would present an opportunity to 'essentially speak out for Scotland' on issues like trade and the increase of business from the United States in Scotland. 'But there are clearly also significant international issues upon which the people of Scotland have a view and want to have that view expressed by their First Minister,' he said. 'That relates to the awfulness of the situation in Gaza and the unbearable human suffering that is going on in Gaza. 'I want to make sure that those concerns and those views are expressed to the President of the United States. 'We have that opportunity, and I intend to take that opportunity to make sure that Scotland's voice is heard.' Mr Swinney also urged all of those set to protest against the President's visit to do so 'peacefully and to do so within the law'.
Chicago Tribune
24 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump's AI plan calls for massive data centers. Here's how it may affect energy in the US
President Donald Trump's plan to boost artificial intelligence and build data centers across the U.S. could speed up a building boom that was already expected to strain the nation's ability to power it. The White House released the 'AI Action Plan' Wednesday, vowing to expedite permitting for construction of energy-intensive data centers as it looks to make the country a leader in a business that tech companies and others are pouring billions of dollars into. Nuclear plant deal sets stage for AI billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg to reshape Illinois energy policyThe plan says to combat 'radical climate dogma,' a number of restrictions — including clean air and water laws — could be lifted, aligning with Trump's 'American energy dominance' agenda and his efforts to undercut clean energy. Here's what you need to know. Massive amounts of electricity are needed to support the complex servers, equipment and more for AI. Electricity demand from data centers worldwide is set to more than double by 2030, to slightly more than the entire electricity consumption of Japan today, the International Energy Agency said earlier this year. In many cases, that electricity may come from burning coal or natural gas. These fossil fuels emit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane. This in turn is tied to extreme weather events that are becoming more severe, frequent and costly. The data centers used to fuel AI also need a tremendous amount of water to keep cool. That means they can strain water sources in areas that may have little to spare. Typically, tech giants, up-and-comers and other developers try to keep an existing power plant online to meet demand, experts say, and most existing power plants in the U.S. are still producing electricity using fossil fuels — most often natural gas. Landing a data center is worth the environmental tradeoffs, Illinois towns sayIn certain areas of the U.S., a combination of renewables and energy storage in the form of batteries are coming online. But tapping into nuclear power is especially of interest as a way to reduce data center-induced emissions while still meeting demand and staying competitive. Amazon said last month it would spend $20 billion on data center sites in Pennsylvania, including one alongside a nuclear power plant. The investment allows Amazon to plug right into the plant, a scrutinized but faster approach for the company's development timeline. Meta recently signed a deal to secure nuclear power to meet its computing needs. Microsoft plans to buy energy from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, and Google previously signed a contract to purchase it from multiple small modular reactors in the works. Data centers are often built where electricity is cheapest, and often, that's not from renewables. And sometimes data centers are cited as a reason to extend the lives of traditional, fossil-fuel-burning power plants. But just this week, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called on the world's largest tech players to fuel their data center needs entirely with renewables by 2030. It's necessary to use fewer fossil fuels, he said. Experts say it's possible for developers, investors and the tech industry to decarbonize. However, though industry can do a lot with clean energy, the emerging demands are so big that it can't be clean energy alone, said University of Pennsylvania engineering professor Benjamin Lee. More generative AI, ChatGPT and massive data centers means 'relying on wind and solar alone with batteries becomes really, really expensive,' Lee added, hence the attention on natural gas, but also nuclear. Regardless of what powers AI, the simple law of supply and demand makes it all but certain that costs for consumers will rise. New data center projects might require both new energy generation and existing generation. Developers might also invest in batteries or other infrastructure like transmission lines. All of this costs money, and it needs to be paid for from somewhere. 'In a lot of places in the U.S., they are seeing that rates are going up because utilities are making these moves to try to plan,' said Amanda Smith, a senior scientist at research organization Project Drawdown. 'They're planning transmission infrastructure, new power plants for the growth and the load that's projected, which is what we want them to do,' she added. 'But we as ratepayers will wind up seeing rates go up to cover that.'
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
July 2025 is when the Trump era started to end
It took six months into President Trump's second term to get here, but something shifted in Trump World this month. The administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case — including its assertion that a 'client list' doesn't exist — sent tremors through the MAGA ecosystem, creating a permission structure for key players on the right to start treating Trump like a lame duck. This was a significant development, even though there are obvious reasons to view Trump this way. Constitutional limits prevent him from running again after 2024. That alone creates an expiration date on his relevance that even the most obsequious loyalists can't ignore forever. Then there's the Epstein connection, which didn't just put a fresh stink on an already scandal-soaked politician. It found him on the wrong side of a definitive MAGA narrative. It's one thing to be indicted multiple times; it's quite another to be entangled in the biggest conspiracy theory of our era. But there's something else in the air: Trump looks old. We may have grown accustomed to his ALL CAPS rants, but the physical symptoms are harder to normalize — the swollen ankles. The makeup caked awkwardly on his hands. Taken together — the reality of Trump's lame-duck status, being out of touch with much of his base and now the physical deterioration — we are left with a picture of a man whose once iron-clad grip on his party is finally beginning to loosen. The base might not say it outright. MAGA influencers certainly won't admit it — but they absolutely see it. And more importantly, they're starting to act on it. The jostling has begun. For this reason, it's no longer absurdly premature to start talking about succession. And, for my money, there are three leading contenders. Vice President JD Vance — seemingly the obvious successor — is clearly positioning himself as heir apparent to Trumpism 2.0: similar themes, better vocabulary, a little more polish and (crucially) a future. Tucker Carlson now also seems to be testing out what it would look like to actually run for office. And Donald Trump Jr. is lurking around the perimeter; the assumption is that his name will carry him somewhere, though it's not clear where (or even if) anyone would follow him. For those hoping the MAGA spell would break post-Trump, the prospects are strikingly bleak. These three men all occupy somewhat similar turf — a figure like Nikki Haley will not be not on this list. Trumpism will survive, albeit without Trump. But winning the internecine battle to lead this movement might be a Pyrrhic victory. Trump's coalition cannot be inherited any more than his celebrity status or charisma can. The coalition wasn't built to outlive 2024. It is an unruly jumble of people with wildly incompatible worldviews, glued together by little more than shared grievance and a cult of personality. It includes paleoconservative nationalists and neoconservative interventionists, Christian fundamentalists and manosphere libertines, fans of McDonald's and crunchy health nuts. And it worked, somehow, in 2024 — but only for Trump. This has always been the dirty secret of Trumpism: It's not transferrable. You could see it in the 2018 midterms, when Republicans took a beating without Trump on the ballot. You saw it again in 2022, when a rogues' gallery of Trump-endorsed candidates flopped spectacularly. The Trump base doesn't show up for the brand — it shows up for the man. So what happens when the man is gone? We're about to find out. For the first time in nearly a decade, the right is confronting a future without a clear standard-bearer. And every would-be successor faces the same paradox: To win Trump's base, you have to sound like Trump. But the more you sound like Trump, the more you remind people you're not him. It's difficult to imagine that any of the frontrunners could maintain the same patchwork coalition. Vance might be able to pick off the nationalist-intellectual set, but he lacks Trump's charisma, and gives off oily politician vibes. Tucker might dominate the culture-war lane. Don Jr. might do okay with the too-online meme crowd. But no one can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Because the thing they're all trying to inherit — Trumpism— isn't an ideology. It's a person. This is the tragedy and farce of the post-Trump GOP: It bet everything on a single man, and now it has no idea how to function without him. Trump hollowed out the party, scorched the institutions and rewired the voter base. And he will likely leave behind a political husk that still bears his name but contains little of his animating style. Of course, Trump isn't gone yet. Republicans — thanks, perhaps, to their plans to gerrymander Texas — could still hold on to Congress in November. Maybe Trump can ultimately find a way to outrun the Epstein controversy and set the terms for the next four years. And, regardless, he could also play a vital role in picking (or sabotaging) whoever inherits his mantle. But that doesn't change the fact that his era is already ending. The spell is finally starting to wear off. And somewhere, just beneath the surface, it feels like the scramble for 2028 has already begun. The question isn't whether someone can pick up the torch. It's whether that person can prevent the flame from being extinguished entirely.
