Beyond the importance of covering legal expenses and giving people the confidence they won’t be bankrupted by Trump, these are really pro-wrestling-derived public spectacles and performance art aimed at telegraphing power and demoralizing enemies. So much of our politics in the Trump era amounts to this. We’ve seen this. We know this if we’re paying attention. And Trump’s opponents need to learn to speak in that language. Otherwise it’s a professional wrestling grudge match, a taunt-fest with only one side taunting. The other side isn’t even on the playing field. It’s the same mix of outrage, incomprehension, powerlessness and finally exhaustion. I fear some folks simply don’t get this dimension of what’s going on. It’s not something you learn in law school and not in conventional, old-style politics either. Defending the targets is key. But that’s not the only point or even the main one. It’s about demonstrating the limits of Trump’s power and embarrassing him, President or not.
Talking Points Memo's editor, Josh Marshall, is right on the mark here as he highlights the escalating war that Trump, his apparatchiks, and his oligarch acolytes are waging against freedom of expression in the public sphere. He's doubly right to cite the need to establish an organized resistance.
I'm totally aligned on this, with one expansion on the concept. It is, for sure, vital to defend – furiously and powerfully – against the bad-faith right wing attacks. But it's just as important, maybe more so, to go on the offense. And we need to start right now.
Constantly being on the defensive is discouraging and debilitating. At some point you have to be putting the other side onto its heels. We have to do both in ways that ultimately persuade people abusing the legal system will conclude it's not worth the money, or the broader trouble they're bringing on themselves and their friends. And we need to help the broader public realize both what's happening and what is at stake.
Many U.S. states have laws intended to deter "strategic lawsuits against public participation" (SLAPP) – baseless legal actions aimed at shutting up critics by burdening them with huge legal fees and using up their valuable time. In America, anyone can sue anyone else no matter how specious the legal case may be. Defending yourself against a totally bogus suit is the punishment when deep-pocketed corporations or rich ideologues can spend endlessly and never notice the cost. The best anti-SLAPP laws let judges – who need to do this more often – force the plaintiff (the party suing to block speech) to pay the defense legal fees.
Trump's bizarre suit against an Iowa pollster and newspaper are punishment because Iowa's legislature has refused to enact an anti-SLAPP law. If the state had one, his case would likely be tossed out fast. Perhaps it still will be, but this is a prime example of the need to have powerful defense resources for the people whose speech – including routine journalism – is being singled for politically motivated punishment.
Meanwhile, there's almost zero chance now of a national SLAPP law, given that the legal system abusers are almost all right-wingers backed by endless pools of right-wing wealth. Passing such a law should have been a Democratic priority over the past four years, but as usual Democrats were too feckless to notice the threat. A national SLAPP law still would be the most effective way to slow the rapidly accelerating Hungary-ization of journalism and other public speech.
Josh Marshall seems confident that an organized opposition would have a built-in offense. In responding to Trump's own lawsuits (as opposed to the ones his apparatchiks and followers file), he sees potential for "embarrassing and wrong-footing this bully degenerate." He's not using the word "embarrassing" to convey morality, given Trump's endlessly demonstrated incapacity for shame. He's saying – and I think he's right – that Trump can be humiliated. Can Elon Musk be humiliated in an effective way? I haven't seen much evidence, but it's vital to try.
To a small degree, the resistance already exists. Some press-freedom and open-government groups have been ably helping people fight off SLAPP suits for years. One is is the California-based First Amendment Coalition (I'm a former board member). But the coalition and others in this field have limited resources already. They will be completely outgunned in the new reality. Even with more funding, which they deserve, they won't collectively be the heavyweight force we require.
There's another reason we can't expect existing press-freedom groups to create or lead a no-prisoners defense-to-offense in our new era, though I'm sure Josh's piece led them to call their major funders. This fight will be vicious, and my guess is these estimable groups – and more importantly their key backers – will fret too much about blowback. They could lose. And if they do, they could lose everything. As institutions grow, continued existence can become a higher priority than fulfilling the mission.
So it seems to me we'll need a new, big, intimidation-proof operation. What form it takes is a task for other people (though I'll be hoping to offer my help in any way they find useful).
However the aggressive opposition arises, I hope, as Josh asks in his piece, to action – fast – from a few billionaires who still believe in democracy and decide that deploying some of their wealth as a societal, not financial, investment is their duty right now. Those honorable rich folks will be joined by a flood of Americans who will, if what's at stake is explained to them, understand the emergency and respond with donations.
We'll also need such organizations – and/or affiliate groups – at the local level It's dawned on arrogant and corrupt local officials that this is a great way to scare off the scrutiny they fear and loathe. Let's scare them off first.
Trump world has already launched its war on journalism and reality-based speech. When he become president again, he's made clear he'll invoke the power of the government in service of this anti-freedom crusade.
Time is running short.
Elon Musk: clear and present danger
Musk used his social network X to stir Republicans into a frenzy over the stopgap spending bill filed the night before by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who was forced by his thin majority to negotiate with Democrats on a resolution that could pass in time to avert a government shutdown that would start 12:01 a.m. Saturday. That outcome appeared more likely as President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance came out against the bill, calling instead for a pared-back measure coupled with a debt-limit increase. The House canceled votes on the spending plan, which included $100 billion in disaster aid funding, billions in farm assistance and dozens of other side deals that pushed the final product past 1,500 pages.
Musk is extremely rich, he’s litigious and willing to fight even without great legal arguments, he’s popular online and has a large army of fans who get mad at his critics, and he is essential to various essential companies. You can’t seriously expect allof the laws to apply to him.
There is no historical precedent (in the United States, maybe anywhere) for someone like Elon Musk, nor the danger he represents to our society and our future. Until now the most evil media baron was, by far, Rupert Murdoch (and family) and the poison-spewing Fox "News" – a channel that has undermined our democracy with malign contempt for progressive advances. The Murdochs are fabulously rich, but they don't have Musk's hold over industries like space exploration, so central to America's future. Nor did the Murdochs effectively buy the presidency (and pick the vice president), though they certainly helped, or control an initiative whose purpose is to wreck effective government.
As Politico explains, Musk just used this (unfortunately) still-powerful social network to amplify lies about a congressional spending deal, pushing the nation closer to government shutdown and, not long after that, default on debts. His lies are propaganda in service of specific goals. In this case I believe the long-term goal is to undermine the dollar. This is a complicated topic that I'll come back to soon (hopefully by pointing you to an explainer by someone who can connect the dots well). I never try to predict how the often irrational markets will go, but look out below.
Meanwhile, the always thought-provoking Matt Levine used his Bloomberg column (alternate link here) to observe that Musk is, after Trump, the most visibly above-the-law person in America. A series of administrations including Obama's, Trump's and Biden's have handed power and billions of dollars to Musk and his companies – giving him leverage over everyone in power, it seems, most notably agencies that have flagrantly given him a pass on law-breaking he brags about. (Levine has been writing about this for a long time but always, it seems to me, with a tone that sounds like he approves of Musk's lawlessness.)
I suspect Musk's day of reckoning will arrive, even if not in a way that is satisfactory for people who still believe in the rule of law. That will happen when Trump decides Musk is too powerful, and a threat to himself or some policy he wants enough. Musk has broken so many laws publicly – and who knows how many offenses we don't know about yet – that Trump will have the more than enough evidence to curb someone who, more and more, acts like he wants to usurp the boss and become the new Dear Leader. Cory Doctorow calls this "boss politics antitrust" – since everyone with with power is dirty in at least some ways, the boss can win corruption cases legitimately against people he doesn't favor, leaving in place the corrupt ones he does like, for the time being anyway. (All bets are off, of course, if Vance – pretty much invented, owned, and operated by the right-wing tech bros – ascends to the presidency. Are Trump's true allies warning him to watch his back?)
How I put this together
This newsletter is a compendium of the reporting and commentary that best explains the America's political, economic, and social conditions – and, most important, how we can find a way back from the dark days ahead. You will rarely find anything here from the New York Times or Washington Post or any of the other Big Journalism companies that failed us so completely during the 2024 elections and are now sucking up – even more than usual – to Donald Trump, his cult, and corporate oligarchs. My focus will be on smaller, more honorable outlets (and individuals). I hope you'll support them with your attention and your money. For more details, please read my About page.
Note: I used a different format today, writing extended commentary of my own to supplement the items I wanted you to read. Let me know if this works well for you.
Please send your suggestions
I spend a lot of time looking for essential coverage, and hope you'll help me by letting me know about the good stuff you find. Let me know.
Subscribe
Was this forwarded to you? If you would like to have your own free subscription, please click here.
Josh Marshall
