Trump Berates and Uses Courts to Muzzle the Press And Free Speech
By Ben Cable (Originally Posted on Substack Sep 16, 2025)
This morning, President Trump held a news conference before boarding his helicopter on the White House lawn. He was on his way to Europe. An ABC reporter asked a question about Kashyap Pramod Patel, who was being questioned over his leadership of the FBI on Capitol Hill. He either did not understand the question or shifted to his Attorney General, Pamela Bondi. Then Trump turned on the reporter and said that Pam Bondi should investigate him, and gloated that ABC had settled a lawsuit and paid him. A straightforward intimidation tactic to berate the reporter and a warning to anyone who should upset him with anything but a cupcake question laced with praise.
Another worthy note about the White House lawn press conference this morning was further (potential) evidence that the elderly President is slipping when he stated about his trip to London, “…to be with Prince Charles,” then retracted by saying “King” multiple times, as if to say I hope you did not hear that.
Donald Trump has a playbook for dealing with inconvenient facts: sue first, sneer later. For years, he’s hurled eye-popping defamation claims at newsrooms, producers, and even authors, trying to turn the courthouse into a kill switch for journalism. But the record tells a different story: a pattern of dismissals punctuated by a few headline-grabbing settlements that have chilled newsrooms nationwide.
The New Salvo: A $15 Billion Broadside at the New York Times
This morning, Trump filed a $15 billion defamation and libel suit against The New York Times, four of its reporters, and Penguin Random House, claiming years of “malicious” coverage and citing the reporters’ book Lucky Loser as Exhibit A. The case lands in federal court in Florida, a venue Team Trump increasingly favors for media fights. The Times says the claim lacks merit.
The Pattern: Sue the Story, Punish the Reporter
This is not a one-off. In July, Trump also sued The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion over reporting tied to his alleged Epstein connection—again chasing a number significant enough to spook corporate boards.
And when he doesn’t like TV edits? He sues the network.
Noteworthy Settlements: Costly Peace Deals That Send a Message
- Paramount/CBS (“60 Minutes”) — $16 million. Paramount paid to end Trump’s lawsuit over editing of a Kamala Harris interview; the company said the money would go toward Trump’s future presidential library. Media watchdogs and even CBS journalists blasted the payout as a dangerous precedent.
- ABC News — $15 million. ABC and anchor George Stephanopoulos settled after he inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for “rape” in the E. Jean Carroll case (the jury found sexual abuse and later defamation). ABC agreed to pay $15 million toward Trump’s library and cover some fees.
- Meta (Facebook/Instagram) — $25 million. After Trump sued over his account suspensions following Jan. 6, Meta agreed to a $25 million settlement, the bulk earmarked for Trump’s presidential library.
- Univision — confidential settlement (2016). Trump settled after suing for dropping Miss USA/Miss Universe broadcasts over his remarks about Mexican immigrants.
These deals don’t prove Trump was right; they prove it can be cheaper to pay off a vexatious litigant than to keep hemorrhaging time and money while regulators (often Trump-appointed) glower over your merger. As one FCC commissioner warned when Paramount settled, the move “undermines the First Amendment.”
The Dismissals: When Judges Slam the Door
- CNN — tossed. Trump’s $475 million “Big Lie = Hitler” case died when a federal judge ruled CNN’s words were opinion, not defamation. (according to Reuters and AP).
- The Washington Post — tossed. A federal judge dismissed the Trump 2020 campaign’s defamation suit over two 2019 opinion pieces. (according to Bloomberg and First Amendment Watch).
- The New York Times (2021 suit over tax stories) — tossed, plus fees. A New York judge dismissed Trump’s case against the Times and reporters who revealed his tax data, ordering Trump to pay $392,638 in legal fees under New York’s anti-SLAPP protections—affirming routine newsgathering is protected. (according to CBS News and ABC News).
- Trump v. O’Brien (the “not-a-billionaire” book) — tossed. Trump’s long-running suit against author Tim O’Brien over TrumpNation was dismissed; an appeals court affirmed.
Why This Matters: The SLAPP Effect
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) aren’t about winning on the merits; they’re about punishment by process, draining budgets, tying up reporters, and scaring the next editor who greenlights a tough story. Courts often throw these cases out, but the chilling effect lingers, especially when a few deep-pocketed outlets capitulate and cut checks.
The Road Ahead
Trump’s new $15 billion Times suit will still have to climb Mount Sullivan—the Supreme Court standard requiring public figures to prove actual malice. That bar is why so many of these cases crater.
But even losing can be winning for a would-be censor: you intimidate the press, dominate a news cycle, and signal to corporate lawyers that it’s safer to settle than to stand on principle.
Scorecard
Settled
- Paramount/CBS “60 Minutes”: $16M (to library) — 7/2/2025.
- ABC News/Stephanopoulos: $15M (to library) — 12/14/2024.
- Meta (Facebook/Instagram): $25M (mostly to library) — 1/2025.
- Univision (Miss Universe): terms undisclosed — 2/11/2016.
Dismissed / Lost
- CNN (“Big Lie”): dismissed — 7/29/2023. Reuters
- Washington Post (Trump 2020 campaign): dismissed — 2/3/2023.
- New York Times tax-records suit: dismissed; $392,638 fees — 5/3/2023 (fees ordered 1/12/2024).
- Tim O’Brien/TrumpNation: dismissed (affirmed on appeal).
New/Active
- New York Times (book Lucky Loser & articles): $15B filed 9/16/2025.
- Wall Street Journal/Murdoch (Epstein-related story): $10B filed 7/2025.
The Bottom Line
This is a pressure campaign by lawsuit, a warning shot at every reporter who’d print an uncomfortable truth. Judges have swatted down many of these cases, but the settlements, and the sheer spectacle of gargantuan demands, are doing the whispering work of censorship. This also steers the press and public away from issues like Patel being questioned over his leadership, mass shootings, and the Epstein Files #Epstein #Epstein #Epstein. There, I acknowledged them.
If you value a press that can investigate presidents without a calculator for court costs, pay attention to these cases, and support outlets that fight them.
Please support Citizen Ben’s independent work by becoming a paid subscriber, by sharing with friends, and earn rewards.
—Citizen Ben
Related Podcast: Litigation as a Weapon
Citizen Ben is a reader-supported publication without corporate sponsors. To receive new posts and support this work, become a free or paid subscriber today.
About the Author
