Trump's WSJ lawsuit is as dangerous as it is unprecedented
Trump's unprecedented step came in the context of his heightened sensitivity about anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous deceased child sexual abuser. On July 17, The Wall Street Journal triggered the suit when it published an article that claimed Trump had sent Epstein a 'lewd' birthday card in 2003 when the latter turned 50 years old.
Trump reacted almost immediately, filing suit the next day seeking $10 billion in damages. But he has his eyes on something even bigger than that suit — namely the possibility of weakening the Constitution's protection of press freedom.
His lawsuit alleges that the Journal's article was an attempt to 'inextricably link President Trump to Epstein' and that the Journal 'falsely claim[ed] that the salacious language of the letter is contained within a hand-drawn naked woman, which was created with a heavy marker.' The president claims that the newspaper 'failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained.'
His lawsuit charges that with 'malicious intent … Defendants concocted this story to malign President Trump's character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.' Those allegations tee up the constitutional battle that the president wants to wage.
Trump's suit against the Journal has already reaped benefits, redirecting Epstein-related ire from the MAGA base away from him. His supporters now have a familiar target: the press and its alleged persecution of the president.
In addition, it is an important step in Trump's long-running desire to get the United States Supreme Court to reverse decades of precedent and make it easier for public figures to win libel and defamation suits against newspapers and other media outlets. Like other strongman leaders, if he can't control the media directly, he wants to coerce and intimidate it. Relaxing its legal protection is one way to accomplish that goal.
In the 2016 campaign, Trump promised: 'One of the things I'm going to do if I win, I'm going to open up our libel law so when they (the press) write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.'
He has failed so far to deliver on that promise. But as we know, he is not easily dissuaded.
Newspapers, radio or television stations that have the audacity not to do the president's bidding must be made to pay a price, with the hope that others will seek to avoid that fate by censoring themselves. Trump's quick and unprecedented resort to the courts sends a clear message to any media outlet that crosses him.
He may be feeling good, but the rest of us should not be.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1786: 'Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.' He went on to note that 'To the sacrifice, of time, labor, fortune, a public servant must count upon adding that of peace of mind and even reputation. And all this is preferable to European bondage. '
Almost 200 years later, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black reiterated Jefferson's sentiment. 'The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy,' he explained. 'The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.' Turmp wants exactly the opposite.
Seven years before Black wrote those lines, the Supreme Court, in another classic defense of press freedom, made it very hard for public figures to win defamation suits against news outlets of the kind Trump filed on Friday.
'To sustain a claim of defamation or libel,' the court said, 'the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.'
Justice William Brennan explained that America's 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' meant 'that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.'
Echoing Jefferson, he added, 'Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error.'
Since 1964, public figures have found it nearly impossible to succeed in cases like the one Trump filed on Friday. Whether he or the Journal loses in the lower courts, the president may be hoping that his case will make its way to the Supreme Court so it can again come to his rescue and do his bidding. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have already indicated their belief that the court's 1964 decision and its actual malice standard should be overruled.
So, keep an eye on what happens to Trump's suit against The Wall Street Journal. The Journal's fate will be important in shaping the fate of the freedom of all Americans.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
‘Unprecedented' Investment Fund Seals Deal for Japan and Expands Trump's Influence
On Tuesday night, Ryosei Akazawa, the Japanese trade negotiator, sat across from President Trump's desk in the Oval Office, clustered alongside the U.S. secretaries of Treasury, commerce and state, trying to convince the president to back off from the punishing tariff rates he had threatened on Japan. As a carrot, American and Japanese negotiators offered Mr. Trump an extraordinary proposal: Japan would create a $400 billion investment fund that Mr. Trump himself could decide where to invest, with half of the profits flowing to the U.S. government. The fund represented a significant expansion by the president over domestic investment, an idea that pleased Mr. Trump. He set about renegotiating some of the terms, crossing out numbers and scribbling on a placemat-size visual aid brought along to the meeting by Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary. In the end, Mr. Trump upped the ante and announced that Japan would create a fund of $550 billion to invest in the United States, with the U.S. government receiving 90 percent of the profits. The announcement has raised significant questions about whether that investment will materialize, and how the president will decide where to direct the funds. But the provision appears to be the key way that Japan — which was reluctant to open its agricultural markets to U.S. exports and insistent on lowering Mr. Trump's tariffs on cars — was able to convince the president to agree to a trade deal. It is also another novel approach to economic policymaking by Mr. Trump, who has smashed Washington's conventional wisdom on trade and taken an expansive view of the control presidents should have over the economy. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, on Wednesday described the investment as the 'centerpiece' of the trade deal with Japan. She said the funds would be spent 'at President Trump's discretion and direction into key industries such as energy, semiconductors, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals and shipbuilding.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Republicans Are Breaking With Trump Over Epstein Files, Polls Show
The Trump administration's recent decision to backtrack on releasing new details about the investigation into the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has prompted something exceedingly rare: Republican voters have begun to break with the president. Mr. Trump has long engendered unwavering loyalty from his followers, who tend to shrug off even his most extreme controversies. But recent public polling suggests even such fervent support may have a limit. While 40 percent of Republicans approve of Mr. Trump's handling of the release of the files on Mr. Epstein, more than a third of them — 36 percent — disapprove, according to a poll from Quinnipiac University. That is perhaps the most intraparty discontent Mr. Trump has experienced as president. Nearly two thirds of Americans overall disapprove of the Trump administration's handling of the case, according to the Quinnipiac poll. Indeed, the Epstein files have led to one of the most unified moments in recent political history. According to recent polling from CBS News and YouGov, nearly 90 percent of Americans — including 83 percent of Republicans — think the Department of Justice should release all the information it has regarding the case against Mr. Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while in jail awaiting trial on charges that he had sex-trafficked teenage girls. These polls were conducted largely before an article in The Wall Street Journal detailed a risqué drawing that Mr. Trump was said to have sent Mr. Epstein decades ago. That article seemed to quell an uprising within Mr. Trump's base over his handling of the files, as he tapped into his supporters' deep mistrust of the mainstream news media. There has been little high-quality polling since the article's publication to assess its impact. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
Billions In Education Funding Remains Frozen, Despite Efforts Of GOP Senators
Still unavailable to the states On July 1, instead of funding, U.S. schools received an unsigned email from the Department of Education stating that the government would not be distributing funds for five grant programs. On July 16, 10 Republican Senators asked the Office of Management and Budget to reconsider, but as of this week, only $1.4 billion of the $6.8 billion total has been released. The email from the department indicated that the five programs were paused for review. Funding for the programs was approved and allocated by Congress in March, but the OMB has frozen the funds. The letter, addressed to OMB director Russell Vought, called for the administration to end the withholding of funds, arguing in terms of the Trump administration's stated priorities. The decision to withhold this funding is contrary to President Trump's goal of returning K-12 education to the states. This funding goes directly to states and local school districts, where local leaders decide how this funding is spent, because as we know, local communities know how to best serve students and families. However, an OMB spokesperson told Newsweek: Initial findings show that many of these grant programs have been grossly abused to promote a radical leftwing DEI agenda, subsidize the Open Border Crisis, and in many cases, directly violate Presidential Executive Orders. Again, the 10 senators struck a conciliatory tone: We share your concern about taxpayer money going to fund radical left-wing programs. However, we do not believe that is happening with these funds. One of the programs that the letter cited specifically is the funding for after- and before-school sessions. On July 18, the OMB indicated that the review of that program was completed and the funds would be released--provided the receiving states certify that they will follow the administration's interpretation of civil rights law, according to Mark Liebreman at Education Week. On July 21, a coalition of school districts, teacher groups, and a PTA group sued the administration in an attempt to have the rest of the funds released. With weeks left before school starts a new year, many districts are scrambling to come up with either program cuts or outside funding sources that will compensate for the withholding of federal funds. ABC News reported that Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she's worried the Trump administration's federal education actions could mean "closing schools" in her home state. The Department of Education is referring questions of funding to the OMB, which has not specified a timeline for decisions about the rest of the funding. It appears that the letter from the senators has exhausted its effects. The 10 GOP senators who signed the letter include Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Susan Collins (ME), John Boozman (AR), Katie Britt (AL), Deb Fischer (NE), John Hoeven, (ND), Jim Justice (WV), Mitch McConnell (KY), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Mike Rounds (SD).
