Murdering the truth: Inside Trump’s war on journalism

New York Times reporter David Enrich on how American oligarchs, billionaires and MAGA politicians are using the law to silence their opponents

Here at Democracy for Sale, we often report on how London’s law courts are weaponised by the wealthy and powerful to intimidate journalists, bury inconvenient truths, and keep corruption out of the headlines.

Last week, the Solicitors Regulation Authority was accused of “shirking responsibility” on Slapps (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) - after it decided not to take action against the London law firm that helped a sanctioned Russian warlord sue Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins.

But today, we’re turning our attention across the Atlantic - to the worrying rise of lawfare in the United States.

The US likes to present itself as a bastion of free speech. The First Amendment is often cited as a near-impenetrable shield for journalists. But that protection is now under coordinated attack — and at the centre of that assault is Donald Trump.

A few weeks after winning the presidential election, Trump secured a staggering $15 million payout from ABC News over a defamation claim. Since then the White House has launched a relentless attack on any journalists who do not toe the party line. (Trump’s $20 billion suit against 60 Minutes for ‘deceptive editing’ would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.)

It’s not just the president. Trump’s war on the media is part of a wider, orchestrated agenda to use lawsuits and legal threats not to win cases, but to punish and silence critics - and even to overturn decades of legal rulings supporting journalists.

Few understand this better than David Enrich, award-winning New York Times investigative reporter and author of the new book Murder the Truth. In it Enrich shows how oligarchs, billionaires and politicians are using the courts as a cudgel to muzzle journalism and suppress the truth across the US.

I spoke with David recently about why UK lawfare tactics are spreading to the US, how Trump is leading a campaign to dismantle press protections, and why independent journalists are increasingly in the firing line. It’s a chilling dive into the global war on truth — and what’s at stake for democracy if we lose.

Peter Geoghegan: David, you’ve reported from both sides of the Atlantic. Maybe we could start by talking about your experience of lawfare and Slapps when you were working in London?

David Enrich: Yeah, London is really where I first saw how aggressive this kind of lawfare can get. I moved there in 2010 with The Wall Street Journal and immediately started running into firms like Schillings and Carter-Ruck — they were much more aggressive than anything I’d seen in the US. This was a significant contrast, as American journalists often have a degree of confidence, perhaps sometimes misplaced, in the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

The moment that really stuck with me came during the Libor scandal. We were preparing to publish a story naming people under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. Rather than responding, the SFO ran to court and got an injunction against me personally. By the time they served me, we’d already published the piece online — they didn’t even know that. But our lawyers warned that if I defied the court, I could face arrest. I’d just had my first child — I couldn’t take the risk. We took the story down and honestly, I’ve regretted that decision ever since.

These experiences in London instilled in me a keen awareness of how readily legal systems can be weaponised to stifle journalism, even when the reporting is accurate and in the public interest. This firsthand exposure to a legal climate where the balance often seemed tilted against the press provided a valuable framework for understanding the concerning rise of similar aggressive legal tactics in the United States, particularly the increasing willingness of powerful figures like Trump to employ these methods.

Peter: And then you saw these same aggressive tactics that you’d experienced in London starting to show up in the US?

David: When I came back to the U.S. in 2017, right after Brexit and Trump’s election, I started seeing the same patterns — aggressive law firms, pre-publication legal threats — creeping into American journalism. I run a team of investigative reporters, and the volume of threatening letters skyrocketed. Some of those letters help — they fix facts, clarify things. But a lot of them are just meant to intimidate.

I wasn’t really sure to what extent other people were getting threatened like this. So I started just fanning out and making a ton of phone calls and sending a lot of emails. I reached out to hundreds of people: local journalists, independent journalists, smaller news outlets, media lawyers who like out in different parts of the country, and I just started hearing these horror stories.

Unlike in the UK where "loser pays" is more common, in the US, even winning a defamation suit doesn't necessarily recoup all legal costs. Even if you win, you can lose. So journalists often self-censor or editors don’t run certain stories. We also have the rise of a transatlantic alliance of law firms. Schillings and US law firm Clare Locke announced an ‘international partnership’ last year. This enables coordinated legal assaults across multiple jurisdictions.

These firms specialise in representing powerful individuals and entities seeking to suppress critical reporting, creating a formidable and well-resourced opposition for journalists. Outlets like The New York Times can handle that — we’ve got the resources. But independent journalists? They’re exposed. I found a number of cases where news outlets and journalists essentially ceased to exist because of these legal tactics.

Scott Stedman’s case really stuck with me. He ran Forensic News, a small investigative site digging into Russian oligarchs, and got absolutely hammered — defamation claims, GDPR suits, harassment allegations. He fought as long as he could, but after years of legal hell, he shut the site down and left journalism. And that’s exactly the point — it’s not about winning in court. It’s about dragging independent reporters through a process they can’t survive.

Peter: How important is Donald Trump in all this? Is it fair to call it a coordinated campaign against those who could reveal things Trump and his inner circle want to keep hidden?

David: When I started reporting the book I thought it was just rich people being litigious. But what I found is a deliberate effort by politicians, lawyers, judges, activists all working together to weaponise the law against the press. And Trump’s rise really accelerated it.

Trump has been very clear from the start — he sees the press as the enemy. In 2016, he said he wanted to “open up the libel laws” to make it easier for people like him to sue journalists. And he’s followed through.

While Trump had a history of filing lawsuits against journalists prior to his presidency - with limited success, it should be said - his approach as president now appears to be more concerted and multi-faceted. He’s not just filing defamation cases — he’s using consumer protection laws, normally reserved for false advertising, to go after news outlets. It’s a deliberate end-run around the First Amendment. But it doesn’t stop there.

His rhetoric, often singling out specific journalists and using inflammatory language, contributes to a climate where such legal attacks seem more acceptable. This isn't just about the media; we've seen him target law firms and universities for actions he dislikes. This pattern suggests a deliberate attempt to use the power of his position and the legal system as a weapon against any individuals or institutions that pose a perceived threat to him or his agenda.

Peter: In the US, New York Times v. Sullivan was a crucial case for press freedom. Could you briefly explain what this ruling established and why it's now under threat?

David: The New York Times v. Sullivan ruling in 1964 was a cornerstone of free speech protection in the US. It established that for a public official (and later extended to public figures) to win a defamation lawsuit, they must prove "actual malice" – that the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This high bar was intended to give journalists the "breathing room" to scrutinise powerful individuals without fear of being bankrupted by lawsuits over unintentional errors. It is absolutely central to the ability of the press to hold power accountable.

The current context is deeply concerning because there is a growing movement to weaken or even overturn this precedent, with some Supreme Court justices openly suggesting it should be revisited. Under a future Trump administration, where there has already been a demonstrated animosity towards critical media, the erosion or overturning of Sullivan would have a devastating impact. It would significantly lower the bar for defamation claims, making it far easier for powerful figures to sue and potentially silence critical reporting, even for good-faith journalism.

This would inevitably lead to greater self-censorship and a chilling effect on investigative journalism, further empowering those who seek to evade public scrutiny. The protections afforded by Sullivan are already being tested, and its weakening would represent a major setback for press freedom in the United States.

Peter: What is the end goal for Trump and his enablers? Are the attacks on independent journalism part of a wider strategy?

David: I believe Trump's efforts to impede independent journalism and critical commentary extend beyond direct legal attacks on the media. His constant rhetorical assaults on news outlets he deems "fake news" or the "enemy of the people" serve to delegitimise critical reporting in the eyes of his supporters and sow distrust in the media as a whole. This creates a climate where legal attacks might be seen as justified.

His administration has taken concrete steps to limit access for certain journalists and has even targeted other institutions like universities and law firms that have acted in ways he dislikes. This demonstrates a broader strategy of using his power to punish and deter any form of dissent or scrutiny.

The long-term implications for freedom of expression are deeply worrying. If these efforts succeed in intimidating journalists and critical voices, it could lead to greater self-censorship and a less informed public discourse. The weakening of legal protections like New York Times v. Sullivan would exacerbate this, making it riskier for anyone to publish critical information about powerful individuals. This isn't just about professional journalists. Academics and others who voice criticism are also facing threats. The danger is a gradual erosion of the ability of the public to hold power accountable.

Peter: You spoke to a lot of smaller journalism outfits for Murder the Truth. Are they particularly at risk? And how important are these outfits in covering what’s happening in the US right now?

David: It is becoming increasingly dangerous to do basic journalism in this country because there are a lot of powerful, rich, and very savvy people out there who are trying to shut down that kind of speech or at least make it a lot scarier to do. That’s particularly a problem for smaller outlets.

If you are not affiliated with a major institution it's very hard to get libel insurance in the US. And even if you can get libel insurance, you often have a very high deductible to meet before it's going to pay out. So, you're right off the bat going to be stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars of your own expenses. And even if you win your case, even if you successfully defend against the lawsuit and it goes away, and you were found to have done nothing wrong, the insurance carriers jack up the rates and the deductibles enormously after you face a lawsuit.

But these local and independent journalists are providing a vital function. The local news media in the US has been decimated and these outlets are filling the void. The people involved might not work for a newspaper but they're publishing, they're doing journalism whether it's in a newsletter or on social media or YouTube or a podcast or whatever. And I think that the addition of all these new voices is really excellent and a great thing for our democracy and for our communities.

David Enrich’s new book Murder the Truth is out now.