Write For Us

Trump wants to toughen the nation's libel laws, but he isn't likely to succeed


By Norman Pearlstine, Los Angeles Times

Donald Trump hates to lose unless he wins by losing.

So, when it comes to libel laws, the president seems happy to portray himself as a victim.

On Wednesday, in response to the publication of excerpts from author Bob Woodward's new, critical book on his presidency, Trump called on "Washington politicians" to change our nation's libel laws.

Earlier this year Trump called libel laws "a sham and a disgrace," shortly after his lawyers had threatened a possible libel suit in an unsuccessful attempt to block publication of Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House." He then renewed his campaign promise to "open up" America's libel laws, pledging "to take a strong look" at them.

Neither Trump nor Congress can easily change defamation laws, and his own inflammatory rhetoric would most certainly be a casualty were libel laws toughened.

Trump has never brought a successful defamation case in court. Still, his lawsuits, including litigation deemed frivolous, are an effective tool for attacking his critics, forcing them to spend lots of time and money defending themselves.

A 2016 USA Today analysis found that Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 4,000 lawsuits over 30 years in U.S. state and federal courts, including seven speech-related actions brought against media outlets and other critics. It and a subsequent report commissioned by the American Bar Association showed these actions were part of a broader attack on the media that included countless cease-and-desist letters and threats of much more litigation.

The ABA report, prepared by Susan E. Seager, a Los Angeles-based First Amendment lawyer, concluded that four of the seven actions were dismissed on the merits, two were withdrawn voluntarily, and that Trump won one arbitration case against a former Miss Pennsylvania by default. Seager said there is some question whether the defendant paid any of the $5-million judgment against her before or after Trump's lawyers filed a "Notice of Satisfaction" that ended that case.

Trump's ability to change libel laws is limited by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court, and the fact that libel cases are decided in state courts interpreting the law of that state. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law that abridges "the freedom of speech, or of the press," and the 14th Amendment extends that prohibition to the states.

The Supreme Court, in a 1961 case, laid down a "federal rule" requiring public officials to prove "actual malice" - that a statement was made with "the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." That landmark, 9-0 decision in New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, has been extended in subsequent cases to include "public figures" as well as "public officials."

While the president's most prominent libel lawyer, Charles J. Harder, has effectively used privacy laws when suing media companies on behalf of celebrities, including Terry Bollea (a.k.a. Hulk Hogan), it is difficult to see how Trump could successfully assert his right to privacy extends to his actions in office or while campaigning.

Nor does the Supreme Court seem likely to reverse its libel rulings. Although Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, told me in a 2005 interview that, given the chance, he would have voted to reverse Sullivan, no sitting justice has voiced similar sentiments. Congress' commitment to the First Amendment and that of the Supreme Court seem secure, even with the addition of a new justice to succeed Anthony Kennedy.

Trump's Wednesday tweet asked, "Isn't it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost."

What Trump describes is a near-perfect definition of "actual malice," and as such, it is already covered by the Sullivan decision. In addition, Sullivan and the precedents the court relied on in reaching its decision protect the president from suits asserting his most outrageous attacks are themselves libelous.

"Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth," Justice William Brennan wrote in Sullivan. His opinion went on to accept the fact that a politician "at times resorts to exaggeration, to vilification" and even to "false statement."

There is no reason to believe President Trump really wants to do anything that would jeopardize that protection.


(Pearlstine is The Times' executive editor.)

Visit the Los Angeles Times at


Note: If you think this story need more information or correction, feel free to comment below your opinion and reaction.

Politics - U.S. Daily News: Trump wants to toughen the nation's libel laws, but he isn't likely to succeed
Trump wants to toughen the nation's libel laws, but he isn't likely to succeed
Politics - U.S. Daily News
Loaded All Posts Not found any posts VIEW ALL Read More Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS PREMIUM CONTENT IS LOCKED STEP 1: Share. STEP 2: Click the link you shared to unlock Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy