Politico slaps reporter Ryan Lizza with cease-and-desist order after he criticized bosses over Trump coverage: report
Politico has reportedly fired off cease-and-desist letters and threats of legal action against former correspondent Ryan Lizza, who slammed the outlet's coverage of the Trump administration after his departure.
Lizza last week launched his own Substack newsletter called Telos News, his first move since quitting Politico, which placed him on leave last year after news broke of a sexting scandal involving his then-fiancee Olivia Nuzzi and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
4 Former Politico correspondent Ryan Lizza with then-fiancee Olivia Nuzzi.
Olivia Nuzzi / Facebook
After Politico tapped someone else to lead their newsletter and moved Lizza to their magazine, he announced his departure and signed a non-disparagement clause – which Politico is arguing he broke by launching Telos, according to a report in Status, a newsletter by Oliver Darcy.
Politico and Lizza did not immediately respond to The Post's requests for comment.
In his Telos newsletter, Lizza has taken aim at traditional media outlets for bending the knee to President Trump and being too fearful to report harshly on the White House, alleging there has been a 'democratic backsliding in Washington.'
He issued a broad attack on mainstream media, but mentioned Politico in particular – prompting the outlet to send him a cease-and-desist letter ordering him to remove the post, according to Status.
4 Political journalist Olivia Nuzzi and Ryan Lizza at the White House Correspondents' Dinner after party in 2023.
Getty Images for CBS News
Lizza then penned articles about Politico's attempts to censor him, and alleged that the company had killed a podcast he had recorded with Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, comparing Trump's presidency to authoritarian rule, according to the report.
More cease-and-desist letters followed, along with an alleged threat of legal action from Politico's top lawyer, according to Status.
Lizza called the letter 'disturbing,' and Politico's attempt to muzzle him a 'scorched-earth campaign of censorship demands' brought on by 'some mild criticism about its editorial leadership's approach to covering Trump.'
4 Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was involved in a sexting scandal with Olivia Nuzzi.
AP
'If they move forward with frivolous litigation, I assure you that Telos will defend itself vigorously and successfully,' Lizza told Darcy, adding that he does not currently have legal representation.
He also challenged John Harris, Politico's editor-in-chief, and Mathias Dopfner, chief executive of parent company Axel Springer, to sit down with him live on Substack for a debate.
4 Ryan Lizza took aim at mainstream media, particularly Politico, in his newsletter.
'John and Mathias should admit that their campaign of censorship was a terrible mistake, retract their demands, and apologize,' Lizza told Darcy.
It's unclear whether any legal action against Lizza is planned.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
32 minutes ago
- Politico
California says Trump's deployment of National Guard violates state sovereignty
California will ask a judge to reverse President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, arguing that the use of the military to suppress immigration protests is an illegal and unconstitutional intrusion on state authority. The state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, a Democrat, unveiled on Monday the basis for the lawsuit, which he said would be filed imminently. The state will ask a federal judge to 'set aside' Trump's Saturday move to 'federalize' California's National Guard troops, part of an order to defend federal property and personnel carrying out Trump's deportation policies. Gov. Gavin Newsom told POLITICO on Monday that federal law requires Trump to coordinate his call-up of the National Guard with the state. 'There was no communication through our office, period, full stop. So, by definition, it's an illegal act,' Newsom, a Democrat, said, adding that the president failed to meet other key prerequisites for the deployment. Bonta alleged that Trump's action violated federal law and the 10th Amendment, the Constitution's provision that protects state sovereignty and rights. At a press conference Monday, the state attorney general said Trump's order 'skipped over multiple rational, commonsense' steps and wound up escalating the unrest while trampling on California's sovereignty. Trump invoked a provision of federal law that gives the president the ability to deploy National Guard troops in limited circumstances, including to suppress 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion' and to help 'execute' federal laws when 'regular forces' are unable to do so. Bonta argued that the provision requires Newsom's concurrence. 'The governor's agreement and consent needs to be part of any calling in of the National Guard. That didn't happen,' the attorney general said. The statute says that a president's order to deploy the Guard under the provision 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It does not expressly mandate consultation with or approval by the governor. Newsom contends that the provision requires at least some communication with the governor's office. Trump indicated over the weekend that he warned Newsom prior to Saturday that he intended to send in troops if he deemed Newsom's response to the protests insufficient. Trump has repeatedly described the L.A. protests as stoked by 'insurrectionists' and has vowed to 'liberate' the city. Bonta and Newsom say the streets had been largely calm when Trump's deployment and inflammatory rhetoric reignited the protests.
Wall Street Journal
35 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Another Chance for Democrats To Embrace Civilization
The universe keeps giving the Democratic Party opportunities to repudiate its era of lawless radicalism. The latest is another appalling conflagration of 'mostly peaceful' protests on the West Coast. For someone looking to lead the party back from a disappointing election cycle and into a position of broad public trust, this just might be the political chance of a lifetime. Perhaps there is someone for whom the recent violence represents the perfect issue to demonstrate that the party will no longer be ruled by the progressive left. But who could it be? Coincidentally Holly Otterbein reported over the weekend for Politico:
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
ActBlue fires back at GOP investigation, saying it appears unconstitutional and partisan
ActBlue is fighting back against a House Republican investigation into its workings, saying the probe appears to have become an unconstitutional abuse of power to help the White House. The Democratic online fundraising platform said Monday in a letter obtained by POLITICO that it was reevaluating whether to cooperate with the ongoing congressional investigation into fraud on its platform in light of President Donald Trump's executive action to investigate potential foreign contributions on ActBlue and House Republicans' public statements supporting the White House. 'If the Committees are now working to gather information on behalf of Department of Justice prosecutors, rather than for legitimate legislative purposes, that would fundamentally transform the nature of your investigation — and violate ActBlue's constitutional rights,' ActBlue's lawyers wrote in the letter Monday to GOP Reps. Jim Jordan, James Comer and Bryan Steil. The allegations are an escalation in the conflict between House Republicans and ActBlue, the behemoth Democratic fundraising platform that has long been in GOP crosshairs as it has helped the left build a massive fundraising advantage. ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones told POLITICO last month that ActBlue believes the platform has 'nothing to hide' but needs to better communicate its role in light of the attacks. In the letter, lawyers representing ActBlue ask the congressional committees investigating the platform to clarify the purpose of their work. They argue public statements from Jordan, Comer and Steil indicate they are seeking to help the Trump Justice Department's separate investigation into ActBlue, rather than carry out congressional oversight. And they note that the "selective focus" of the investigation does not appear to include WinRed, the GOP's primary online fundraising counterpart — and thus may be intended to hurt Democrats, not provide legitimate oversight of American elections. 'The Committees' selective focus on ActBlue also suggests that the investigation may be a partisan effort directed at harming political opponents rather than gathering facts to assist in lawmaking efforts,' the letter reads. 'Such an action would raise substantial First Amendment concerns.' Spokespeople for the GOP committees investigating ActBlue did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday afternoon. A spokesperson for ActBlue also did not immediately comment. The letter comes as the Trump administration is also going after ActBlue. Trump signed a memorandum in April ordering Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the potential use of foreign 'straw' donations in online fundraising, citing concerns about foreign influence in elections based in part on the work of the GOP-led congressional committees. ActBlue was the only platform named in the order. The memorandum calls for Bondi to report back in 90 days, which would be late July. Under federal law, only U.S. citizens and green card holders can give to campaigns and political action committees. Republicans have long argued that ActBlue, which processed billions of dollars in donations for Democrats last year, is not strict enough in weeding out potential foreign contributions. ActBlue has countered that it has processes to catch illegal donation attempts and that similar challenges exist on other platforms, including WinRed. The platform's lawyers also suggested that ActBlue's further cooperation with the congressional probes could depend on the extent of the committees' work with the Justice Department. 'In light of your public statements, it is essential that we receive more information about your agreement to coordinate the Committees' activities with the Executive Branch, so that ActBlue may properly evaluate its ongoing efforts to cooperate with the Committees,' the platform's lawyers wrote. ActBlue previously turned over thousands of pages of internal documents to the committees, some voluntarily, and then later under subpoena. The committees released an interim report in April that cited cases of fraud identified in the ActBlue documents as a means to argue that the platform had an 'unserious' approach to fraud prevention.
