Anaya Nolan
President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to change federal libel laws to make it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage. However, it is important to note that there is no federal libel law in the US, and libel laws are a state issue. Trump's attempts to change libel laws are part of a larger effort to criticize and attack the press's credibility. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the press, setting a high bar for any laws that might infringe on these freedoms. Despite Trump's threats, there is little he can do to change libel laws, and any modifications would require either the Supreme Court to overrule it or a constitutional amendment.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Trump's opinion on libel laws | Trump has called the current libel laws a "sham and a disgrace" and believes they do not represent American values or fairness. He has also said that the British system is better as it is easier to sue for libel in the UK. |
| Trump's goal | Trump wants to ''open up' libel laws to make it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage and legal harassment of his critics. |
| Trump's actions | Trump's private attorneys sent a threatening letter to the publisher of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House" warning of libel liability. He has also reached deals with five law firms to avoid the prospect of punishing executive orders. |
| Supreme Court rulings | The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the press, making it difficult for public officials to win libel suits. The Court has also upheld the New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which requires "clear and compelling evidence" of "actual malice" in libel suits involving public figures. |
| Constitutional limitations | Libel laws are subject to the First Amendment limitations imposed by the Supreme Court, which protect freedom of speech and the press. |
| State laws | Libel laws are controlled by state laws, and each state can adopt its own libel law as long as it complies with the US and state constitutions. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's power to change libel laws
President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to change federal libel laws, stating that the current laws are a "sham and a disgrace" and do not represent "American values or American fairness". Trump's chief of staff, Reince Priebus, confirmed that the administration was considering strengthening libel laws, with Trump himself stating that he wanted to "open up" the libel laws to make it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage.
However, it is important to note that there is no federal libel law in the United States. Libel is a civil wrong, or tort, that falls under state law, and any changes to these laws would require either the Supreme Court to overrule it or a constitutional amendment. While Trump has expressed a preference for the British system, where it is easier to sue for libel, the First Amendment of the US Constitution provides stringent protections for the press and free speech, making it very difficult for a plaintiff to bring a successful libel claim.
Trump's interest in changing libel laws is part of a larger effort to criticize and attack the credibility of the press, with whom he has had a contentious relationship throughout his presidency. The Supreme Court, however, has consistently thwarted Trump's attempts to "open up" libel laws, including declining to take up a case brought by Trump donor Steve Wynn that challenged the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which insulated the press from libel suits over good-faith criticism of public figures.
Despite Trump's threats, legal experts and organizations such as the ACLU have emphasized that the President has little power to change libel laws unilaterally and that his attempts to do so may be unconstitutional.
Apologizing Under Duress: Can the Law Demand Remorse?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Libel laws and free speech
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. At the same time, defamation laws protect individuals from untrue and harmful statements that can damage their careers, reputations, finances, or health. The clash between these two rights can lead to expensive litigation and negative public perceptions of the press.
The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the First Amendment sets a high bar for any laws that might infringe on free speech and press freedoms. This bar is even higher for libel suits brought by public officials or figures, who must prove that a statement was made with actual malice, meaning the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This distinction recognizes that libel laws could chill debate about public issues.
In 2025, then-President Donald Trump threatened to change federal libel laws to enable the legal harassment of his media critics. However, the Supreme Court thwarted these attempts by declining to take up a case that could have weakened press protections. Trump had a history of using litigation to intimidate his adversaries, and his administration was criticized for attempting to manipulate the judiciary to suppress speech supporting Palestinian rights.
Hiring Law Enforcement: Can Businesses Employ Officers Legally?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's use of litigation
Trump has been known for his use of litigation to intimidate and bankrupt his adversaries, even before he ran for public office. He has repeatedly threatened to change federal libel laws, which do not exist. In 2023, Trump's private attorneys sent a letter to the publisher of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House", warning of libel liability if the book were released. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the press, setting a high bar for libel suits, especially those brought by public officials.
Trump has also reached deals with prominent law firms to avoid the prospect of punishing executive orders. These deals require the firms to provide pro bono legal services or free legal work for various causes. The Trump administration has faced criticism and legal challenges for its actions on national security and immigration, with some claiming that it is unconstitutional and retaliatory.
Trump donor Steve Wynn petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 decision that protected the press from libel suits over good-faith criticism of public figures. Wynn's petition was dismissed unanimously by the Supreme Court, thwarting Trump's dream of 'opening up' libel laws.
Immigration Law: Where Can Attorneys Practice?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Libel laws and the constitution
Libel laws in the US have a long and complex history, dating back to before the American Revolution. The First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, forms the basis of these laws. However, the Supreme Court has historically neglected to use it to rule on libel cases, resulting in a mix of libel laws across different states, based on traditional common law inherited from the English legal system.
The 1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a landmark moment in US libel law. The case established that public officials could only win a libel suit if they could prove that the defendant published a false and defamatory statement with reckless disregard for the truth or with actual malice. This raised the bar for libel suits brought by public officials, given the power they hold in society. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case constitutionalized libel law, marking a shift in the legal landscape.
Despite the First Amendment protections, libel and slander lawsuits can still have a chilling effect on free speech. The right to free speech and a free press often clashes with the interests served by libel laws. This conflict has been a point of contention, with President Donald Trump famously threatening to change federal libel laws. Trump's efforts to open up libel laws were thwarted by the Supreme Court, which declined to take up a case that could have undermined press protections.
While the Constitution provides a framework for libel laws, it is essential to recognize that the laws vary across different states. Some states have criminal libel laws, although they are rarely prosecuted. Most defendants in defamation lawsuits are newspapers or publishers, and most plaintiffs are public figures or corporations. The definition of libel and slander differs between states, making a comprehensive discussion of what constitutes libel challenging.
CBD Oil Health: What's Legal for New York Employees?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$32.95
$14.99
Libel laws and the Supreme Court
Libel refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation. The First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press often clash with the interests served by defamation law. The press, to a large extent, exists to report on issues of public concern. However, individuals have a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character.
The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the First Amendment raises a high bar for any laws that might infringe on the freedoms of speech and the press. This bar is even higher for libel suits brought by public officials because of the power they wield in society. For a public official to win a libel suit, the plaintiff must show that the defendant published a false and defamatory statement, and that they did so maliciously.
In the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, the court found that a journalist who published erroneous information about a public figure without knowing it was wrong was constitutionally protected. The justices wrote that limitations on libel laws reflect a “profound national commitment to the principle” of free speech and a free press. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionalized libel law.
In 1985, the Supreme Court held that in actions for libel involving private individuals and matters of purely private concern, presumed and punitive damages may be awarded on a lesser showing than actual malice. The Court determined that the First Amendment was not violated by permitting the recovery of presumed and punitive damages without a showing of malice, as long as the defamatory statements did not involve issues of public concern.
In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court thwarted Trump's dream of 'opening up' libel laws. The Court declined to take up Trump donor Steve Wynn's challenge to New York Times v. Sullivan, which could have upended press protections. Wynn objected to a Nevada law that requires "clear and compelling evidence" of "actual malice" in libel suits involving public figures. Wynn felt this denied him the right to a jury trial over his claims against the Associated Press for accusing him of sexual misconduct without sufficient evidence.
Presidential Power: Can State Laws Be Invalidated?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, Trump cannot change the libel laws. There is no federal law on libel in the US, and state laws on libel are subject to the First Amendment limitations imposed by the Supreme Court.
Trump has said that he thinks the US libel laws are a "sham and a disgrace" and do not represent "American values or American fairness". He has also said that he wants to open up the libel laws to make it easier to sue media organisations for unfavourable coverage.
In the US, libel is a civil wrong for which the aggrieved party may sue for money damages. For a public official to win a libel suit, they must show that the defendant published a false and defamatory statement and that they did so maliciously.
Trump has a history of using litigation to intimidate and bankrupt his adversaries. He has also targeted law firms with executive orders and deals to bend them to his will. Trump donor Steve Wynn petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse New York Times v. Sullivan, which insulates the press from libel suits over good-faith criticism of public figures. The Supreme Court unanimously declined to take up the case.
