In October 2025, Donald Trump refiled a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times after a district judge dismissed it for being too long, giving the administration 28 days to trim it down (from 85 pages to 40 pages). In the lawsuit, President Trump claims that the New York Times published defamatory comments while covering his 2024 campaign, detailing six examples. The New York Times issued a response to these allegations stating that they were baseless.
Notably, this is not the first lawsuit President Trump has brought against journalists. Another famous example is the Wall Street Journal, which Donal Trump sued after the newspaper published a compromising birthday card that the president reportedly wrote to Jeffrey Epstein. Similarly, the BBC, CNN, ABC, Des Moines Register, and CBS parent company Paramount were all targeted. A couple of these news media companies settled, such as ABC, which paid 16 million dollars and issued an apology. Paramount settled for 16 million dollars as well. These lawsuits illustrate how the administration is attacking independent journalism through lawsuits—even though the standards for public figures to file a defamation lawsuit are very high (they have to prove that either the defendant knew that they were publishing false information, or that they had serious doubts about the validity of what they were publishing).
In his seminal article on “Stealth Authoritarianism (2015),” Ozan O. Varol argues that libel lawsuits, where authoritarian figures sue political dissidents for libel, have become a classic authoritarian move. Varol states that “Libel laws, which exist in various forms in all democratic countries, have become a powerful legal tool” (Varol 2015: 1693) As Varol states, this can lead to a “culture of self-censorship,” which tilts the electoral field in favor of the incumbent. Instead of outright banning free speech (which might lead to protests), autocratic leaders resort to legal, more subtle ways of silencing their opponents. Similarly, D. Trump is weaponizing legal tools against journalists, forcing news agencies to think twice before they publish something negative about him, especially if they do not have the money to fight back or settle. The tactic is a seemingly legal way to stop freedom of the press without violating the constitution.
Stealth authoritarianism is dangerous: it is much harder to detect because it operates within the framework of democracy. Using this tactic, President Trump is clearly trying to undermine the opposition through expensive litigations. As such, muzzling the media is a foreboding development, reminiscent of autocratic regimes—most infamously foreign agent laws. First implemented by Russia in the early 2010s and since replicated in several other post-Soviet countries, foreign agent laws compel NGOs, news media, and journalists to label themselves as “foreign agents” online and to face various restrictions if they receive funding from abroad and are engaged in political activities. The United States, traditionally a strong supporter of freedom of expression and freedom of the media, used to criticize such laws. Supporters of democracy should call out what is now happening here.
Works Cited
Alsharif, Mirna, and Austin Mullen. “Trump Refiles $15B Defamation Lawsuit against the New York Times.” NBC News, 17 Oct. 2025, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-refiles-15b-defamation-lawsuit-new-york-rcna238170.
Gerstein, Josh. “Trump Is Still Going after the Press in Court. Here’s Where His Lawsuits Stand.” POLITICO, Politico, 4 Mar. 2026, www.politico.com/news/2026/03/04/donald-trump-media-lawsuits-00812525.
Hill, James, and Peter Charalambous. “Trump Seeks to Proceed with $10B Lawsuit over WSJ Story on Epstein’s Birthday Book.” ABC News, 21 Oct. 2025, abcnews.com/US/trump-seeks-proceed-10b-lawsuit-wsj-story-epsteins/story?id=126717491.
Press, The Associated. “Donald Trump Files $15 Billion Defamation Lawsuit against the New York Times.” NPR, 16 Sept. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/09/16/nx-s1-5543030/donald-trump-nytimes-lawsuit.
Rubin, April. “Trump Refiles $15B New York Times Defamation Lawsuit.” Axios, 17 Oct. 2025, www.axios.com/2025/10/17/trump-new-york-times-lawsuit-defamation-refiled. Accessed 8 Mar. 2026.
Safdar, Khadeeja, and Joe Palazzolo. “Epstein Birthday Letter with Trump’s Signature Revealed.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 8 Sept. 2025, Exclusive | Epstein Birthday Letter With Trump’s Signature Revealed – WSJ
“The New York Times Responds to Lawsuit Filed by President Donald Trump | the New York Times Company.” The New York Times Company, 16 Sept. 2025, www.nytco.com/press/the-new-york-times-responds-to-lawsuit-filed-by-president-donald-trump/.
- Varol. 2015. “Stealth Authoritarianism.” Iowa Law Review 100(4): Parts I and II.
This blog demonstrates that Trump’s actions against media companies are not just a legal fight, but an action that weakens democracy through legal means. This is why I chose to write a comment about what I think about it, because I see a connection between this blog and democratic erosion.
The part I was most impressed by was the self-censorship effect. ABC and Paramount chose to pay settlement fees and issue apologies rather than fighting the lawsuits. This means that other media outlets will now face pressure to think twice before reporting about Trump critically. This is a method to suppress freedom of the press without breaking the law — and this is exactly what I would describe as part of democratic erosion.
Personally, this situation feels particularly significant to me because the U.S. is the leading country of democracy and has long served as a model of democracy for other countries. What is happening in the U.S. makes me think more deeply — not just about American democracy, but about how far democratic erosion around the world may have already gone.
Lastly, I am curious about how long Trump can continue to effectively control freedom of the press, and whether U.S. citizens will continue to accept this.
I wanted to make my comment more specific, so I am replying to the original post. This blog demonstrates that Trump’s actions against media companies are not just a legal fight, but an action that weakens democracy through legal means. I chose to write this comment because I see a clear connection between these events and democratic erosion, which is exactly what the blog discusses.
The part I was most impressed by was the self-censorship effect. ABC and Paramount chose to pay settlement fees and issue apologies rather than fighting the lawsuits. This implies that other media outlets will now face pressure to think twice before reporting critically on Trump. This is a method of suppressing freedom of the press without technically breaking the law—which is exactly how I would describe democratic erosion.
As the blog mentions, this phenomenon aligns with what I learned about Stealth Authoritarianism. According to Ozan Varol, many modern authoritarian leaders use the “mask of law” instead of direct repression. By oppressing the media through legitimate legal paths, it maintains an appearance of the rule of law, but it is actually a stealthy way of weakening the opposition. This is particularly dangerous because it is not just an infringement on media freedom; it is part of the collapse of democratic institutions.
One of the main requirements Robert Dahl suggested in Polyarchy was the availability of alternative sources of information, which guarantees freedom of expression. In America, legal offensives against the media block citizens’ right to access information, which shakes the fundamental foundations of democracy. When media outlets have to think about expensive lawsuits, they will avoid reporting critical news about the President. This means people cannot get the information they need to understand what is really happening.
This illustrates a process of democratic erosion that does not happen overnight. As the blog points out, it is a gradual and subtle weakening of institutional capacity. The first settlement by ABC sets a precedent—now other media companies will think it is normal to settle or face pressure. Over time, people stop expecting independent journalism. This is how democratic erosion works: slowly and step by step.
Personally, this situation feels significant because the U.S. has long served as a global model for democracy. What is happening there makes me think more deeply about how far democratic erosion may have already progressed worldwide. If the United States, the leader of democracy, allows this kind of suppression through legal means, other countries might think it is acceptable too. This could weaken democracy around the world.
Ultimately, I am worried about how this strategy will affect American democracy in the long term. The blog shows us that we should be careful about this type of stealth authoritarianism because it is hard to see and hard to stop. I think citizens should pay attention to this and speak up about it, because this is how democracy can be weakened without people even noticing.