Stephen L. Carter: Presidents can’t sue their way out of criticism

posted in: All news | 0

There’s a certain irony in the fact that President Donald Trump announced his silly $15 billion defamation suit against The New York Times scant days after a federal appellate court dismissed a similar claim against Fox News. That lawsuit was filed by Nina Jankowicz, the former head of the Biden administration’s short-lived Disinformation Governance Board.

The lawsuits suffer from a common defect: They seek to turn hyperbolic criticism of a government official into grounds for civil damages. The court was right in tossing Jankowicz’s suit; Trump’s should meet a similar fate — and quickly. It should be exceptionally difficult for those who serve in government to sue their critics; for presidents, it should be hardest of all.

The Trump lawsuit is leading the news, and it’s easy to see why. He seeks $15 billion in damages for a litany of grievances against the Times, which, in his telling, has been “spreading false and defamatory content” about him, during both his terms and in between. Yet on even a quick reading of the lengthy complaint, nearly everything cited is either fair comment, opinion, or for other reasons not actionable.

To understand the problem with Trump’s suit, it might be helpful to turn first to last Friday’s opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of Jankowicz’s claim that she’d been defamed by Fox News. The Disinformation Governance Board — could one imagine a more Orwellian name? — was an advisory committee to the Department of Homeland Security, announced with fanfare in April 2022, and then, in the wake of fierce criticism, was “paused” the following month and dismantled that August.

Jankowicz, who headed the board for all of three weeks, was targeted early and often by critics who warned that censorship of American citizens would not be far behind. In her suit, she alleged that Fox News, both while she led the board and after she left, broadcast commentary that defamed her.

The trial court dismissed Jankowicz’s action, and on appeal the Third Circuit was unsympathetic. The panel noted first that criticism of a government agency isn’t defamatory and explained that to punish a news outlet for its choice to make a particular official the face of that criticism is an “attack on core free expression rights.” In short, much of what Fox News said about Janowicz wasn’t actually about her. The rest, the court wrote, consisted mostly of predictions, speculation, or opinion — or was substantially true. All of those are traditional grounds for rejecting defamation claims. In the case of speech aimed at government officials, they should be interpreted as broadly as possible. To do less is to cast a shadow over the most fundamental right of a free people: the right to criticize those who govern.

Which brings us back to Trump’s lawsuit. The defendants are not just the Times, but also several of its reporters, along with Penguin Random House, publisher of a recent best-selling book by those reporters about Trump and his businesses, based largely on articles published in the Times.

The complaint, although heavy on words, is light on substance. It begins with 20-odd pages of pointless but quotable commentary — a familiar if unfortunate device these days as lawyers try to get headlines. The next 20-odd pages boast of Trump’s achievements throughout his career. Most of this is in service to a narrative that we might paraphrase this way: The Times so dislikes Trump that it published false statements in an effort to deny him reelection.

Clearly, the Times cannot be punished either for disliking him or for trying to defeat him. That leaves only the claim that he was defamed. Because Trump is a public figure — arguably the most public figure in the world — he must show that the alleged falsehoods were published by the Times and Penguin Random House either with knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

It’s hard to see how he can do that. Here, as in Janowicz’s complaint, almost everything Trump alleges is either opinion, prediction, or speculation. For example, when the Times and the book questioned Trump’s business acumen, the complaint responded by pointing to investments that turned a tidy profit. But the fact that the purchase of Mar-a-Lago has multiplied its value many times over doesn’t make the opinion “false.”

To see the court’s logic, imagine that I were to write, “President Trump seems to sue people just to get back at them.” That’s clearly a statement of my opinion, fully protected under the First Amendment. It would not be rendered “false” simply because he won or settled a few lawsuits.

Similarly, the complaint disputes the reporters’ assertions about how Trump became famous, who was responsible for his success, and whether he paid adequate attention to the financial details of his businesses. (The lawsuit also charges the Times and Penguin with implying that Trump’s father Fred, in preparing to transfer his fortune to his son, jiggered the numbers. Even if this statement were defamatory (and I’m not saying it is), this does not appear to be a statement about his son Donald and therefore is not actionable.) All of these would seem clearly to be statements of speculation or opinion.

Another example: Trump alleges that the Times editorial board, in endorsing Kamala Harris, “asserted hypocritically and without evidence that President Trump would ‘defy the norms and dismantle the institutions that have made our country strong.’” That sort of allegation, too, arose in Jankowicz’s case, where the complaint argued that Fox News had predicted that she would “surveil” and “censor” Americans. The Third Circuit concluded that “the vast majority” of the statements made about the plaintiff personally were not actionable because they represented “speculation and conjecture about Jankowicz’s motives, goals, and future actions, of which the truth or falsity were not readily verifiable.” When speculation is “laced with hyperbole” — which is essentially what Trump alleges here — the case for dismissal is even stronger.

The short of it is that government has no business trying to regulate speech about itself — and that includes lawsuits by public officials who dislike what the news media says about them. I’m not saying that anybody needs to grow a thicker skin; rather, public servants must recognize that our ability to say cruel, even nasty things about them is part of what is meant by freedom.

I’m no fan of the mockery and vituperation that so often passes for public dialogue. But I’m even less of a fan of punishing those who engage in it. As the Supreme Court wrote some 84 years ago, “it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.”

And, as the courts might now add, about the people who run them.

Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of law at Yale University and author of “Invisible: The Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America’s Most Powerful Mobster.”

 

Letters: President Eisenhower’s preface might help in these times

posted in: All news | 0

‘In my opinion …’

In light of the horrid assassination of Charlie Kirk, and, unfortunately, similar murders in the past few years, the after cry is always “tone down the rhetoric.” Easier said than done, but perhaps not if we go to a speech pattern used by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

So often President Eisenhower prefaced his remarks with “in my opinion.” As a young person I used to wonder why he would weaken his argument in this way, but as I grew older and knew a little bit more about life, I began to realize that phrase was absolute genius on his part.

He was commander of the Allied Forces and he had to work with some very large egos, DeGaulle and Montgomery come to mind. When you say “in my opinion.” the idea is right where it belongs, with you, and it opens a respectful dialogue.

I suggest we all go to our mirrors and repeat 10 times a day until it becomes a habit, “in my opinion.” Likewise on social media, it should be a default prefix on all posts. Sometimes making little changes can lead to big results.

Rhea Sherburne Nyquist, West St. Paul

 

A model for civil discourse

One lesson left behind by Charlie Kirk that Americans of all political beliefs should duplicate and embrace are the open-house dialogue and debate sessions that he held on college campuses across the country.

Anyone can watch these debate sessions on YouTube and see how courteous and respectful these debates were. Charlie had a big sign at these gatherings that read “prove me wrong,” and he encouraged students with opposing views to debate him.

I hope that our young people follow this open-dialogue model for civil discourse instead of the shouting and disrespectful antics seen on TV and created by their parents’ generation.

Corby Pelto, Minneapolis

 

Anger only incites more anger

I am writing about a recent column written by Thomas Friedman, “A plea for President Trump with a fragile country on the edge.”

I could not agree more with the premise that all top leaders of both parties must come together, not as Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives; but as Americans, to stop the political violence rocking this country.

Enough of the labeling and blaming “far left” because the violence comes from both sides. Anger and blame from top leadership only incites more anger, violence and divisions.

Nancy Nichols, Oak Park Heights

 

Encouraging dissent

Those who say Charlie Kirk was a Fascist and a Nazi show their intolerant ignorance. Fascists and Nazis abhor dissent. Charlie Kirk was just the opposite — he encouraged and welcomed dissent. Shame on those who find joy in his death.

Donald Theissen, Woodbury

 

Blame on the political scoreboard

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, his friend, Vice President JD Vance, claims he wants “unity,” yet in the same breath warns of the rise in “leftist” violence. The Hortmans were assassinated by a right-wing conservative earlier this summer. JD Vance does not want unity; he wants blame to be prominently displayed on a political scoreboard. Couldn’t he just warn of the rise in political violence if he wanted to bring unity?

Ryan McCabe, St. Paul

 

A long line of needless tragedies

The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a brutal and savage act but is just one chapter in a long line of needless tragedies and a symptom of a much greater loss. That loss is the compound loss of widely held values of civility, of human decency, of respect for the opinions of others, of Judeo-Christian morality, of the sanctity of human life, of public decorum and love for our country. Charlie’s “sin” was to fight vigorously, with the weapon of his words, to save and restore these values, and for that “sin” a courageous and noble man was slain. And we all died a bit with Charlie, lowering us ever deeper into a depraved and debased culture, ever closer to the threat voiced by Ben Franklin, who, when asked after the Constitutional Convention “what form of government has been created?”, stated “a republic, if you can keep it”.

It is, and has been, disgusting to hear many prominent senators and representatives, political candidates and entertainment personalities speak publicly, with an obviously coordinated political strategy employing the foulest and most vulgar language possible on multiple occasions, to express their hatred for President Trump. We hear politicians urging us to “fight harder”, to “get in their face”, to “be more aggressive”, to “harass them in restaurants and other public places”. One washed-up entertainer spoke of “blowing up the White House” when George Bush was president, another of cutting out Bush’s heart, and of course we have had attempts on the life of President Trump. We even heard a call for silent prayer for Charlie and his family loudly shouted down in the U.S. House chamber. We hear ad-hominem attacks on those who dare to hold opposing views, but seldom do we hear cordial and meaningful debate on controversial issues, as we routinely heard from Charlie. Let’s debate the merits of socialism and capitalism, open borders, abortion, transgender rights and therapies, of deficit spending, of tariffs and taxes, and do so civilly. We can learn from each other only when we share information and opinion.

Yes, there has been inexcusable violence from right wing extremists as well as from the left, and there has been uncivil mockery of left wing policies as there was of President Biden, but what you haven’t heard from the right is direct calls for violence as we hear routinely from the leaders on the left (and let me be clear that it is the leaders fomenting this hatred of the opposition. I am confident that rank-and-file liberals truly want what is best the country and for all of us).

In conclusion, there is fault on both sides, and both sides have spoken often of the “threat to democracy” posed by the other party. I ask what could be a greater threat to democracy than the murder of those with whom we disagree?

Charlie Kirk knew the answers to those problems noted above, as did the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, who said “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” Let us heed those words, all of us together, with the courage and spirit of Charlie Kirk.

Richard Powell, Owatonna

 

An oasis of oaks and fond memories

I happened by Newell Park recently, and it rekindled fond memories.

There, in the1950s, a small St. Paul business named Lincoln Equipment, now gone, held its annual company picnic in late August for workers and their families.  Within earshot of the Minnesota State Fair, I remember hearing screams from the midway and roaring race cars, now gone, circling inside the Grandstand.  All acoustic ambience enhancing our gunnysack races, tug-of-war, unlimited hotdogs, etc. that day.

I remember the coldness of repeatedly dipping my hands into the huge trough of ice water until I found an ever-precious bottle of grape pop.

I remember the men, Bob (my dad), Vern, Ray, Don, Ken, Fran and more, now gone, and how they patiently allowed me to join in their softball game.

And the treasure hunt amidst the gently rolling hills adorned with green grass and acorns from the many ornate oak trees, now with enormous ankle-drooping limbs. And how the majesty of this gnarled art shaded those below at the famous horseshoe pits, now gone, site of the climactic event – the men’s horseshoe tournament. The women seemed to enjoy this as much as the men, based on their cheers and playful heckling.  No one seemed to mind the attention toward the men, perhaps because a decade earlier these same men battled as boys in World War II.

Anyway, thank you, St. Paul Parks and Recreation, for preserving Newell Park, a true oasis of oaks – not gone!

James R. Carey, Little Canada

‘Field of Bands’ fundraiser at Washington County Fairgrounds to aid veterans and troops

posted in: All news | 0

Former Guns N’ Roses drummer Steven Adler will headline a fundraiser this weekend for the Yellow Ribbon Alliance of the Lower St. Croix Valley.

Drummer Steven Adler waves during an April 15, 2012, performance after Guns N’ Roses’ induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. (AP Photo/Tony Dejak, File)

“Field of Bands” will be held noon to 8 p.m. Saturday at the Washington County Fairgrounds in Baytown Township. Also playing: Arch Allies, Wayward Boyz Klub and GNO (Girls Night Out). Adler and his band, who perform Guns N’ Roses classics, are scheduled to play from 6:30 to 8:15 p.m.

The fundraiser helps the Yellow Ribbon Alliance Lower St. Croix Valley provide scholarships for local graduating seniors; donate to organizations like Operation 23 to Zero, Patriot Assistance Dogs, and Homes For Our Troops; and host a Veterans’ Dinner each November, said Cindie Reiter, a member of the alliance.

The alliance also helps cover medical needs for a local family with a young child battling cancer; provides transportation for local Veterans needing medical care; carpentry and construction for families’ homes including plumbing/roofing, and has assisted a family clearing debris after a house fire, Reiter said.

Tickets are $31.80 in advance and $42.40 on the day of show; children 12 and under are free. Food trucks, wine and beer will be available at the event; no coolers will be allowed.

Attendees are asked to use the south entrance of the Washington County Fairgrounds on 40th Street and to bring their own chairs; limited picnic table seating is available. Parking is free.

New this year: No guns or weapons. A metal-detector wand will be used on all who enter.

For more information, go to 5cityyellowribbon.com.

Related Articles


Too many tomatoes? No such thing! Four recipes to use up that late-season crop


Bob Dylan added to lineup for this weekend’s Farm Aid concert in Minneapolis


Como’s Fall Flower Show opens Friday. Here’s how to watch it bloom.


Hip hop star Cardi B to make her long-awaited return to the metro


‘Coolest Thing Made in Minnesota’: A look at this week’s matchups

Pete Buttigieg rallies against redistricting in home state of Indiana

posted in: All news | 0

By ISABELLA VOLMERT and OBED LAMY, Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg rallied Democrats against redistricting in his home state of Indiana Thursday as pressure grows on Republican state lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional districts.

Buttigieg — a contender to represent Democrats aiming to win back the presidency in 2028 — was the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, before he launched into the national political scene by running for president in 2020 and emerged victorious from the Iowa caucus that year.

Indiana Republicans have been hesitant to redistrict so far compared to other states where the GOP holds control. But Democrats have little power to stop the move if Republican leaders choose to create a new map.

“Indiana Republicans are being pressured by Washington Republicans to do something that they know in their hearts is wrong,” Buttigieg said.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaks at a rally at the Statehouse in Indianapolis, Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025 for Indiana Democrats amid pressure from President Donald Trump on Republicans who control the state’s legislature to redistrict congressional seats. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

Typically, states redraw their congressional districts every 10 years with the census. But President Donald Trump wants to give his party an advantage in the 2026 election in order to keep majority control in the House of Representatives, as midterms tend to favor the party out of power. Republicans in Texas and Missouri have moved to create advantageous new seats while California Democrats have countered with their own new proposal.

Indiana lawmakers however have not yet answered the redistricting call and have kept their cards close, emblematic of the state’s independent streak and its more measured approach to politics.

But pressure from Trump to redraw House districts has been mounting on Republicans in the state he won by 19 percentage points in 2024. First-term Gov. Mike Braun, a Republican, said Tuesday that a legislative session on redistricting probably will happen, and it could come as soon as November. But he doesn’t want to call a special session unless there will be a successful outcome.

“I’ve been very clear. I want it to be organic,” he said in a video reported by WRTV in Indianapolis.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaks at a rally at the Statehouse in Indianapolis, Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025 for Indiana Democrats amid pressure from President Donald Trump on Republicans who control the state’s legislature to redistrict congressional seats. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

A large crowd gathered inside the statehouse in Indianapolis Thursday afternoon to see Buttigieg speak.

“It’s an issue of fairness,” said Judy Jessup, an Indianapolis resident. “The voters should get to choose politicians, not the other way around.”

Buttigieg is the biggest Democratic voice to come out of Indiana in recent memory. Following the 2020 election, Buttigieg and his family moved to Traverse City, Michigan, and he served as Secretary of Transportation under the Biden administration.

In an excerpt from her upcoming memoir, Kamala Harris said that Buttigieg was her first pick for 2024 running mate, but she said running with Buttigieg, who is openly gay, was too risky. He didn’t address the comments on Thursday.

Annette Groos holds a sign before the start of a rally featuring former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg at the Statehouse in Indianapolis, Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025 for Indiana Democrats amid pressure from President Donald Trump on Republicans who control the state’s legislature to redistrict congressional seats. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

Braun could call a special session, but it would be up to lawmakers to create a new map. Republicans hold a supermajority in both chambers in Indiana, meaning Democrats could not stop or delay a special session by refusing to attend, like their peers in Texas briefly did. Republicans also outnumber Democrats in Indiana’s congressional delegation 7-2. Some Republicans see an opportunity to gain all nine seats in the state.

The GOP would likely target Indiana’s 1st Congressional District, a Democratic stronghold encompassing Gary and other cities near Chicago. Three-term Democratic Rep. Frank Mrvan won reelection in 2022 and easily retained the seat in 2024 even after Republicans redrew the district to be slightly more favorable to the GOP.

Related Articles


Parents fear losing disability protections as Trump slashes civil rights office


US once again vetoes Security Council resolution demanding immediate Gaza ceasefire, hostage release


DC leaders defend crime fighting efforts to Congress as federal law enforcement surge continues


‘It hurts all of us’: Mass deportations ensnare immigrant service members, veterans and families


‘Inhumane’: Trump’s mass deportations ensnare noncriminal immigrants from all walks of life

Republicans could also zero in on the 7th Congressional District, composed entirely of Marion County and the Democratic stronghold of Indianapolis, but they would invite more controversy by slicing up Indiana’s largest city and diluting Black voters’ influence.

“Both of those districts are filled with Black voters,” state Sen. Andrea Hunley, who represents Indianapolis, said at the rally. “This is a racist power grab to silence voters who look like me.”

Texas passed a new map that would help Republicans win up to five new seats, and Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, is expected to sign legislation soon that would help Republicans win seven of the state’s eight districts. Meanwhile, California Democrats are launching a campaign to build support ahead of a Nov. 4 referendum on new U.S. House districts that were made to offset wins made by Texas Republicans.

Utah and Ohio may soon have new congressional district maps, and elected leaders in other states also are considering mid-decade redistricting, including Republicans in Florida and Kansas and Democrats in Maryland and New York.

Volmert reported from Lansing, Michigan.