Kara Sears
Former US President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to weaken libel laws in the country, threatening First Amendment protections for journalists and making it easier for him to sue them. Trump has a history of using litigation to intimidate his critics, and his administration's attempts to manipulate the judiciary to suppress speech are well-documented. While there is no federal libel law in the US, and state laws on libel are subject to stringent First Amendment protections for free speech and the press, Trump's threats are part of a larger effort to criticise and discredit the media.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Trump's goal with changing libel laws | To make it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage |
| Current status of Trump's plans | Stalled |
| Existing libel laws | Libel laws are a matter of state law, not federal law |
| Trump's opinion on existing libel laws | "Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness." |
| Trump's opinion on the British legal system | "I think [the British system] is better. It’s easier to sue for libel in the UK." |
| Requirements for public officials and public figures to win a libel suit | Must prove "actual malice" or "reckless disregard" |
| Requirements for private persons to win a libel suit | Must prove a lower level of fault, such as negligence or carelessness |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's interest in changing libel laws
Former President Trump has long expressed an interest in changing the libel laws in the United States. Trump has repeatedly threatened to change federal libel laws, despite the fact that, as the ACLU points out, these laws do not exist. Libel is a matter of state law, and any changes to these laws would require a Supreme Court appeal or a constitutional amendment.
Trump's criticism of the press and attempts to change libel laws have raised concerns about freedom of speech and the press. The First Amendment provides robust protection for the press, and the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that any laws infringing on these freedoms must meet a high bar. In the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court held that even false, defamatory statements are protected under the First Amendment unless the plaintiff can prove that the statements were published with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This decision set a high standard for public officials and public figures to win libel cases against the media, requiring them to prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice".
Despite Trump's threats to change libel laws, legal experts have noted that there is little he can do to modify these laws due to the protections afforded by the First Amendment and the federal structure of libel legislation. Nonetheless, Trump's comments and attempts to intimidate his critics through litigation have sparked concerns about the potential impact on press freedoms and the broader implications for democratic values.
How Laws Can Be Amended: A Dynamic Process
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Libel laws in the UK
In England and Wales, the burden of proof lies with the publisher of the potentially libelous statement. Simply pointing to another press report or relying on allegations in a police arrest warrant is not sufficient. Instead, truth or statutory qualified privilege can be used as a defence, provided there is no evidence of malice. For example, fair and accurate reports of court proceedings or public meetings fall under statutory qualified privilege.
To succeed in a defamation claim, claimants must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement is false and was made with malicious intent, causing serious harm to their reputation. The Defamation Act 2013 raised the bar for claimants, requiring them to demonstrate "serious" harm to their reputation and introducing stricter rules for litigants not domiciled in the UK.
The UK's libel laws have been criticised for hindering investigative journalism and enabling "libel tourism," where foreign individuals or companies sue over reporting in other countries. This has led to concerns about chilling effects on free speech and journalism worldwide.
LLC to Corporation: Changing Business Structure Without Altering State Law
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$9.95
The Supreme Court's stance on libel laws
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly thwarted former President Donald Trump's attempts to 'open up' libel laws. Libel is a tort, or civil wrong, for which the aggrieved party may sue for monetary damages. While there is no federal law on libel, state libel laws are subject to the First Amendment limitations imposed by the Supreme Court. The First Amendment was designed to protect freedom of the press and speech, and the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that this sets a high bar for any laws that might infringe on these freedoms.
In the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court recognized that protection of reputation could impact freedom of speech and press. The Court imposed stringent rules that make it difficult for a plaintiff to make a successful libel claim. The Court ruled that public officials could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of the defendant. This means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement and did so maliciously. This precedent was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is lower in the case of private individuals.
In 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition by Trump donor Steve Wynn, who wanted to reverse the New York Times v. Sullivan decision. Wynn objected to a Nevada law that required "clear and compelling evidence" of "actual malice" in libel suits involving public figures. The Supreme Court's unanimous dismissal of Wynn's petition was surprising, given that two of the court's GOP-appointed justices had previously questioned the Sullivan precedent.
Despite the Supreme Court's stance, Trump and his team have repeatedly threatened to change libel laws to make it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage. However, legal experts note that there is little the President can do to change libel laws, as they are a matter of state law.
Crush Experiment: Gas Laws in Action
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's ability to change libel laws
Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to weaken libel laws, threatening to make it easier for him to sue news media outlets for defamation. Libel law in the United States generally makes it difficult for public figures to sue reporters or other people who criticize them. To win a libel case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that factually incorrect statements were made with "'actual malice' or a "reckless disregard for the truth". Trump has said he wants to lower this standard.
However, Trump's ability to change libel laws is limited. Firstly, there is no federal libel law in the United States. Libel is a matter of state law, and each state can adopt whatever libel law it wants as long as it aligns with the US and state constitutions. Therefore, Trump, as the head of the federal executive branch, has little say in the matter.
Secondly, the First Amendment of the US Constitution provides broad free speech protections for journalists, which have been repeatedly endorsed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the First Amendment sets 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, they must prove not only that the defendant published a false and defamatory statement but that they did so maliciously.
In the landmark 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public officials and public figures must meet a high burden of proof to successfully sue news organizations for libel. The Court established that it is not enough for officials to show that false information was published about them; they must also prove that the information was published with "actual malice". This standard has been tough to meet, with only a handful of cases achieving it in the past few decades.
To change libel laws, Trump would need to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which is highly unlikely. He could also attempt to amend the Constitution, but this does not seem feasible either.
Despite these limitations, Trump's threats to loosen libel laws are concerning as they are part of a larger effort to criticize and discredit the press. Trump has a history of using litigation to intimidate and bankrupt his adversaries, and his administration has been accused of manipulating the judiciary to suppress free speech.
Changing Church Fasting Laws: A Dynamic Approach?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$32.95
Libel lawsuits filed by Trump
Despite his repeated threats to ""open up" libel laws, former US President Donald Trump has not been able to change the laws as they are governed by individual states and court precedents. Trump has a long history of using litigation to intimidate and bankrupt his adversaries, and he has repeatedly threatened to make it easier to sue media organizations for unfavourable coverage. However, Trump's ability to change libel laws is limited, as there is no federal law on libel, and state laws are subject to stringent First Amendment protections for the press and other speakers.
Trump and his businesses have themselves been sued several times for libel or defamation, with most of those suits being dismissed. One notable case involved stock analyst Marvin Roffman, who sued Trump for $2 million in 1990, claiming that Trump had defamed him in critical statements to various news outlets. Roffman alleged that he was fired from his job after predicting the failure of the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, and that Trump's defamatory statements had harmed his reputation. The outcome of this case is unclear.
In another instance, Trump claimed that former Miss Universe contestant Sheena Monnin had falsely denigrated the pageant as "rigged". Monnin was hit with a $5 million default judgment when she failed to appear for arbitration, and the judgment was upheld by a federal judge in 2013. On the other hand, a federal judge in Atlanta gave Trump's lawyers the opportunity to submit an amended complaint in a libel lawsuit against CNN. The lawsuit, filed in March 2020, alleged that CNN columnist Larry Noble had defamed Trump in an opinion piece suggesting that the Trump campaign had considered seeking Russia's help in the 2020 election.
Trump's attempts to "open up" libel laws have been thwarted by the US Supreme Court, which declined to take up Trump donor Steve Wynn's challenge to the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision. This decision insulates the press from libel suits over good-faith criticism of public figures, requiring ""clear and compelling evidence" of "actual malice" in such cases. Despite the limitations on his power to change libel laws, Trump's threats are still concerning as they are part of a broader effort to criticize and discredit the press.
Elizabeth Warren's Legal Career: Can She Practice Law?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, Trump cannot lower libel laws. Libel is a state law, and the President has no say in the matter.
Trump wants to lower libel laws to make it easier for him to sue news media outlets that publish "purposely negative and horrible and false articles". He also wants to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters.
Libel law in the United States makes it difficult for public figures to sue reporters or people who criticise them. To win such a case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that factually incorrect statements were made with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.
Trump said, "Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness. So we’re going to take a strong look at that. We want fairness. You can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account".
