Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
A pretty good journalism rule of thumb: Someone threatening to sue someone isn't news.
Literally anyone can say they're going to sue someone, for any reason. But many people who say they're going to sue someone don't follow through. So, the argument goes, you should wait until they actually file a suit, for real, to report on it.
Then there's Donald Trump. He also threatens to sue people — and the press specifically — all the time. But sometimes, he goes ahead with the threat. He's also going to be the most powerful person in the world, again, starting next month.
So. When Trump announces that he's going to sue journalists and news organizations — like he did Monday, when he suggested he would sue pollster Ann Selzer, or The Des Moines Register, or both, for publishing a poll that showed him losing Iowa in the 2024 election — should we take him seriously?
Trump says he plans to sue Ann Selzer and the newspaper in Iowa that published her poll showing Trump losing just days before the election pic.twitter.com/ujSmW3GTTM
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 16, 2024
I think so.
That's in part because Trump, who has a long career of threatening media organizations, seems to be ramping up his legal energy. Over the weekend, he extracted a $15 million settlement from ABC News over a George Stephanopoulos interview from March that Trump said was defamatory. He's also filed a suit against CBS over the way its "60 Minutes" program handled an interview with Kamala Harris, claiming the network is guilty of election interference.
Plenty of legal experts think Trump has no chance of defeating CBS in court — "The First Amendment was drafted to protect the press from just such litigation," attorney Floyd Abrams told CNN this fall. But that same cohort didn't think much of Trump's chances against ABC.
Just as important: The threats Trump is making— along with those made by others in his circle, like Kash Patel, Trump's nominee to run the FBI, who has promised to "come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections" — seem to be a strategy.
As The New York Times's David Enrich notes, those suits and threatened suits seem like the "latest sign that the incoming Trump administration appears poised to do what it can to crack down on unfavorable media coverage."
It's true that the First Amendment makes it hard to win suits against journalists, and everyone else in the United States, over what they say or write. Even more so when the person filing the suit is a public figure. And Donald Trump may be the most public figure there is.
But fighting lawsuits — even those without much chance of winning — can be very costly. (For its part, The Des Moines Register's parent company has said a lawsuit would be without merit.) And while it's possible for publishers who win suits Trump files against them to charge him for their legal fees — like The New York Times successfully did this year — you still have to have the money, and willpower, for the fight.
Perhaps just as important: It's one thing to fight Donald Trump in court when he's a private citizen. It's quite another when he's the president of the United States and can make life difficult for you or your company regardless of what happens in the courtroom.
All of which is something you now have to think about if you're in the business of journalism. Not just when Trump, or someone in his circle, complains about your reporting — but before you publish or air it. That seems to be what Trump would like.
So yeah. That's a story.
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images
The next Trump administration says it wants to get rid of regulations.
But not all regulations.
Brendan Carr, Trump's choice to head the Federal Communications Commission, says he plans to scrutinize broadcast TV operators to see if they are operating in "the public interest" — a requirement tied to the 1934 Communications Act. If they're not, he says, they could lose their license to use the public airwaves.
What exactly does that mean? Carr isn't super-specific. And Carr, who already is an FCC commissioner, didn't mention the issue when he wrote about the FCC for Project 2025, a conservative planning document Trump allies are using to help staff the next administration. But he has been talking about it quite a bit over the last few weeks.
Shortly after Trump nominated Carr to lead the FCC, Carr announced that the agency would "enforce this public interest obligation." He brought the idea up again in a Fox News interview shortly after. On Friday, he talked about it again, via a CNBC interview.
"Look, the law is very clear. The Communications Act says you have to operate in the public interest," he said. "And if you don't, yes, one of the consequences is potentially losing your license. And of course, that's on the table. I mean, look, broadcast licenses are not sacred cows."
Asked to clarify if he meant he was going to target broadcasters he thought were too liberal, Carr said that wasn't the case, and that he wasn't trying to rein in speech.
"At the end of the day, obviously there's a statutory provision that prevents the FCC from engaging in censorship. I don't want to be the speech police. But there is something that's different about broadcasters than, say, podcasters, where you have to operate in a public interest."
Then Carr argued that all he plans on doing is enforcing existing regulations.
"I'm just saying follow the law. I mean, this law has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It's not my decision to hold broadcasters to a public interest obligation. It's Congress. And if they don't like that, then they should go to Congress to change the law."
(It's worth noting the act applies only to companies with over-the-air broadcast operations, like CBS and NBC. But all four of the big broadcast networks are part of larger media outfits. In the case of CBS and NBC, that's Paramount and Comcast, respectively.)
You can see the whole thing here:
I've asked Carr and his office for comment and clarification about where he thinks broadcasters may have acted against the public interest.
But in the meantime, it's worth noting that he's already argued that CBS deserves scrutiny over the way its "60 Minutes" program handled an interview with Kamala Harris — which is also the center of a lawsuit Trump filed against CBS last month. And that Carr also complained about Harris making an appearance on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" the weekend before the election.
Perhaps Carr has also criticized the way broadcasters have treated Harris or other Democrats. But I haven't seen or heard it.
All of which suggests that Carr may try using the power of his agency to affect the way broadcasters treat Trump and his allies. Even if he says that's not the case.
But none of this is super clear-cut. For instance: Carr has talked about bringing up Trump's "60 Minutes" complaint when Larry and David Ellison, who are trying to buy CBS owner Paramount, need approval to transfer the CBS broadcast license. But it's hard to imagine a Carr-led FCC actually holding up the Paramount deal, given that Larry Ellison is both a Trump supporter and good pals with Elon Musk, a Carr ally.
And it's also worth noting that Carr also has carrots available to help get broadcasters on board, in addition to sticks. Most notably: Lots of media owners are hoping that the next Trump administration will make it easier for them to consolidate, and Carr has repeatedly said he's in favor of that. So this could easily get muddy.
But all of it has the potential to cause media companies to think twice, or a third time, before airing something they think Donald Trump has a problem with. Is that what Brendan Carr wants?
