SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks to guests during a campaign stop at Berg Middle School on January 11, 2020 in Newton, Iowa. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Sanders Says Trump 'Taking a Page From His Dictator Friends Around the World' With NYT Libel Lawsuit
The 2020 Democratic frontrunner said the president is "trying to dismantle the right to a free press in the First Amendment by suing the New York Times for publishing an opinion column about his dangerous relationship with Russia."
Feb 25, 2020
Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders denounced the behavior of President Donald Trump on Wednesday after the president's reelection campaign filed a libel lawsuit against the New York Times for an op-ed it published last year.
"Let's be clear," Sanders said in a statement, "we have a president who believes he is above the law and can do and say whatever he wants without consequences. Donald Trump has ignored the Constitution, disregarded the will of Congress, and attacked the judiciary."
"Let's be clear, we have a president who believes he is above the law and can do and say whatever he wants without consequences. Donald Trump has ignored the Constitution, disregarded the will of Congress, and attacked the judiciary."
--Sen. Bernie SandersThe president, Sanders continued, "has called the press the 'enemy of the people,' and now--taking a page from his dictator friends around the world--is trying to dismantle the right to a free press in the First Amendment by suing the New York Times for publishing an opinion column about his dangerous relationship with Russia."
The lawsuit (pdf) was filed by the president's 2020 campaign and asserts the Times unlawfully defamed Trump by publishing an op-ed in March of 2019, written by the newspaper's former executive editor Max Frankel, that speculated "the real Trump-Russia quid pro quo" didn't need to be proven in a court of law or in Congress, but that the tacit agreement between Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin could be perceived by examining both private and public communications known at the time.
"There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin's oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration's burdensome economic sanctions," Frankel wrote. "The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo."
As Axios reports, the Trump lawsuit, which was filed in the New York State Supreme Court, "claims the article falsely reports a conspiracy between Trump and Russia and that the Times knowingly published a false narrative."
In their filing, Trump's lawyers argue that the lawsuit is need to "publicly establish the truth, properly inform The Times' readers (and the rest of the world) of the true facts, and seek appropriate remedies for the harm caused by The Times' intentional false reporting."
Trump, many have noted, has a long history of filing libel lawsuits against news outlets and individuals--though he often fails to follow through with them.
"This suit will be tossed out immediately," said legal analyst and journalist Jeffrey Toobin. "It's a publicity stunt."
Brian Hauss, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, called the lawsuit "completely meritless," in a statement to Common Dreams.
"A publisher cannot be held liable for commentary based on public facts," Hauss explained. "If the law were any different, President Trump himself could be held liable for asserting that the Democrats colluded with Russia."
The Freedom of the Press Foundation characterized the suit as just the latest escalation in Trump's attacks on journalism:
\u201cBREAKING: Escalating his battle with the press, Trump campaign sues the New York Times for libel over a March 2019 opinion piece on Russian election interference https://t.co/W2cPey9uiM\u201d— Freedom of the Press (@Freedom of the Press) 1582745688
In response to the suit, a spokesperson for the Times said: "The Trump Campaign has turned to the courts to try to punish an opinion writer for having an opinion they find unacceptable. Fortunately, the law protects the right of Americans to express their judgement and conclusions, especially about events of public importance. We look forward to vindicating that right in this case."
For his part, Sanders charged that the effort by Trump fits a pattern of authoritarian behavior by the president--whom he vowed to defeat at the polls in November.
"Enough," he declared. "Donald Trump is the most dangerous president in modern history, and this November we will defeat him, restore the rule of law, and protect our constitutional rights."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders denounced the behavior of President Donald Trump on Wednesday after the president's reelection campaign filed a libel lawsuit against the New York Times for an op-ed it published last year.
"Let's be clear," Sanders said in a statement, "we have a president who believes he is above the law and can do and say whatever he wants without consequences. Donald Trump has ignored the Constitution, disregarded the will of Congress, and attacked the judiciary."
"Let's be clear, we have a president who believes he is above the law and can do and say whatever he wants without consequences. Donald Trump has ignored the Constitution, disregarded the will of Congress, and attacked the judiciary."
--Sen. Bernie SandersThe president, Sanders continued, "has called the press the 'enemy of the people,' and now--taking a page from his dictator friends around the world--is trying to dismantle the right to a free press in the First Amendment by suing the New York Times for publishing an opinion column about his dangerous relationship with Russia."
The lawsuit (pdf) was filed by the president's 2020 campaign and asserts the Times unlawfully defamed Trump by publishing an op-ed in March of 2019, written by the newspaper's former executive editor Max Frankel, that speculated "the real Trump-Russia quid pro quo" didn't need to be proven in a court of law or in Congress, but that the tacit agreement between Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin could be perceived by examining both private and public communications known at the time.
"There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin's oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration's burdensome economic sanctions," Frankel wrote. "The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo."
As Axios reports, the Trump lawsuit, which was filed in the New York State Supreme Court, "claims the article falsely reports a conspiracy between Trump and Russia and that the Times knowingly published a false narrative."
In their filing, Trump's lawyers argue that the lawsuit is need to "publicly establish the truth, properly inform The Times' readers (and the rest of the world) of the true facts, and seek appropriate remedies for the harm caused by The Times' intentional false reporting."
Trump, many have noted, has a long history of filing libel lawsuits against news outlets and individuals--though he often fails to follow through with them.
"This suit will be tossed out immediately," said legal analyst and journalist Jeffrey Toobin. "It's a publicity stunt."
Brian Hauss, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, called the lawsuit "completely meritless," in a statement to Common Dreams.
"A publisher cannot be held liable for commentary based on public facts," Hauss explained. "If the law were any different, President Trump himself could be held liable for asserting that the Democrats colluded with Russia."
The Freedom of the Press Foundation characterized the suit as just the latest escalation in Trump's attacks on journalism:
\u201cBREAKING: Escalating his battle with the press, Trump campaign sues the New York Times for libel over a March 2019 opinion piece on Russian election interference https://t.co/W2cPey9uiM\u201d— Freedom of the Press (@Freedom of the Press) 1582745688
In response to the suit, a spokesperson for the Times said: "The Trump Campaign has turned to the courts to try to punish an opinion writer for having an opinion they find unacceptable. Fortunately, the law protects the right of Americans to express their judgement and conclusions, especially about events of public importance. We look forward to vindicating that right in this case."
For his part, Sanders charged that the effort by Trump fits a pattern of authoritarian behavior by the president--whom he vowed to defeat at the polls in November.
"Enough," he declared. "Donald Trump is the most dangerous president in modern history, and this November we will defeat him, restore the rule of law, and protect our constitutional rights."
Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders denounced the behavior of President Donald Trump on Wednesday after the president's reelection campaign filed a libel lawsuit against the New York Times for an op-ed it published last year.
"Let's be clear," Sanders said in a statement, "we have a president who believes he is above the law and can do and say whatever he wants without consequences. Donald Trump has ignored the Constitution, disregarded the will of Congress, and attacked the judiciary."
"Let's be clear, we have a president who believes he is above the law and can do and say whatever he wants without consequences. Donald Trump has ignored the Constitution, disregarded the will of Congress, and attacked the judiciary."
--Sen. Bernie SandersThe president, Sanders continued, "has called the press the 'enemy of the people,' and now--taking a page from his dictator friends around the world--is trying to dismantle the right to a free press in the First Amendment by suing the New York Times for publishing an opinion column about his dangerous relationship with Russia."
The lawsuit (pdf) was filed by the president's 2020 campaign and asserts the Times unlawfully defamed Trump by publishing an op-ed in March of 2019, written by the newspaper's former executive editor Max Frankel, that speculated "the real Trump-Russia quid pro quo" didn't need to be proven in a court of law or in Congress, but that the tacit agreement between Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin could be perceived by examining both private and public communications known at the time.
"There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin's oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration's burdensome economic sanctions," Frankel wrote. "The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo."
As Axios reports, the Trump lawsuit, which was filed in the New York State Supreme Court, "claims the article falsely reports a conspiracy between Trump and Russia and that the Times knowingly published a false narrative."
In their filing, Trump's lawyers argue that the lawsuit is need to "publicly establish the truth, properly inform The Times' readers (and the rest of the world) of the true facts, and seek appropriate remedies for the harm caused by The Times' intentional false reporting."
Trump, many have noted, has a long history of filing libel lawsuits against news outlets and individuals--though he often fails to follow through with them.
"This suit will be tossed out immediately," said legal analyst and journalist Jeffrey Toobin. "It's a publicity stunt."
Brian Hauss, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, called the lawsuit "completely meritless," in a statement to Common Dreams.
"A publisher cannot be held liable for commentary based on public facts," Hauss explained. "If the law were any different, President Trump himself could be held liable for asserting that the Democrats colluded with Russia."
The Freedom of the Press Foundation characterized the suit as just the latest escalation in Trump's attacks on journalism:
\u201cBREAKING: Escalating his battle with the press, Trump campaign sues the New York Times for libel over a March 2019 opinion piece on Russian election interference https://t.co/W2cPey9uiM\u201d— Freedom of the Press (@Freedom of the Press) 1582745688
In response to the suit, a spokesperson for the Times said: "The Trump Campaign has turned to the courts to try to punish an opinion writer for having an opinion they find unacceptable. Fortunately, the law protects the right of Americans to express their judgement and conclusions, especially about events of public importance. We look forward to vindicating that right in this case."
For his part, Sanders charged that the effort by Trump fits a pattern of authoritarian behavior by the president--whom he vowed to defeat at the polls in November.
"Enough," he declared. "Donald Trump is the most dangerous president in modern history, and this November we will defeat him, restore the rule of law, and protect our constitutional rights."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
'Their Complicity Is Dangerous': DC Police Chief Slammed for Submitting to Trump's ICE Raids
"The very institution that is supposed to keep district residents safe is now allowing ICE to jeopardize the safety and lives of hardworking immigrants and their families," said one local labor leader.
Aug 14, 2025
The ACLU and a local branch of one of the nation's largest labor unions were among those who condemned Thursday's order by Washington, DC's police chief authorizing greater cooperation with federal forces sent by President Donald Trump to target and arrest undocumented immigrants in the sanctuary city.
Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith issued an executive order directing MPD officers to assist federal forces including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in sharing information about people in situations including traffic stops. The directive does not apply to people already in MPD custody. The order also allows MPD to provide transportation for federal immigration agencies and people they've detained.
While Trump called the order a "great step," immigrant defenders slammed the move.
"Now our police department is going to be complicit and be reporting our own people to ICE?" DC Councilmember Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said. "We have values in this city. Coordination and cooperation means we become a part of the regime."
ACLU DC executive director Monica Hopkins said in a statement that "DC police chief's new order inviting collaboration with ICE is dangerous and unnecessary."
"Immigration enforcement is not the role of local police—and when law enforcement aligns itself with ICE, it fosters fear among DC residents, regardless of citizenship status," Hopkins continued. "Our police should serve the people of DC, not ICE's deportation machine."
"As the federal government scales up Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, including mass deportations, we see how local law enforcement face pressure to participate," she added. "Federal courts across the country have found both ICE and local agencies liable for unconstitutional detentions under ICE detainers. Police departments that choose to carry out the federal government's business risk losing the trust they need to keep communities safe."
Understanding your rights can help you stay calm and advocate for yourself if approached by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or police. 🧵
[image or embed]
— ACLU of the District of Columbia (@aclu-dc.bsky.social) August 11, 2025 at 7:30 AM
Jaime Contreras, executive vice president and Latino caucus chair of 32BJ SEIU, a local Service Employees International Union branch, said, "It should horrify everyone that DC's police chief has just laid out the welcoming mat for the Trump administration to continue its wave of terror throughout our city."
"The very institution that is supposed to keep district residents safe is now allowing ICE to jeopardize the safety and lives of hardworking immigrants and their families," Contreras continued. "Their complicity is dangerous enough but helping to enforce Trump's tactics and procedures are a violation of the values of DC residents."
"DC needs a chief who will not cave to this administration's fear tactics aimed at silencing anyone who speaks out against injustice," Contreras added. "We call for an immediate end to these rogue attacks that deny basic due process, separates families, and wrongly deports hardworking immigrants and their families."
The condemnation—and local protests—came as dozens of immigrants have been detained this week as government forces occupy and fan out across the city following Trump's deployment of National Guard troops and federalization of the MPD. The president dubiously declared a public safety emergency on Monday, invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act. Trump also said that he would ask the Republican-controlled Congress to authorize an extension of his federal takeover beyond the 30 days allowed under Section 740.
Washington, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser—a Democrat who calls the occupying agencies "our federal partners"—has quietly sought to overturn the capital's Sanctuary Values Amendment Act of 2020, which prohibits MPD from releasing detained individuals to ICE or inquiring about their legal status. The law also limits city officials' cooperation with immigration agencies, including by restricting information sharing regarding individuals in MPD custody.
While the DC Council recently blocked Bowser's attempt to slip legislation repealing the sanctuary policy into her proposed 2026 budget, Congress has the power to modify or even overturn Washington laws under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. In June, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed Rep. Clay Higgins' (R-La.) District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, which would repeal Washington's sanctuary policies and compel compliance with requests from the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE. The Senate is currently considering the bill.
Trump's crackdown has also targeted Washington's unhoused population, with MPD conducting sweeps of encampments around the city.
"There's definitely a lot of chaos, fear, and confusion," Amber Harding, executive director of the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, told CNN Thursday.
David Beatty, an unhoused man living in an encampment near the Kennedy Center that Trump threateningly singled out last week, was among the victims of a Thursday sweep.
Beatty told USA Today that Trump "is targeting and persecuting us," adding that "he wants to take our freedom away."
On Social Security's 90th Anniversary, Trump's Attacks on Program Top List of Policies Americans Oppose
Nearly two-thirds of Americans said they disapprove of the Trump administration slashing the Social Security Administration workforce.
Aug 14, 2025
As the US marked the 90th anniversary of one of its most broadly popular public programs, Social Security, on Thursday, President Donald Trump marked the occasion by claiming at an Oval Office event that his administration has saved the retirees' safety net from "fraud" perpetrated by undocumented immigrants—but new polling showed that Trump's approach to the Social Security Administration is among his most unpopular agenda items.
The progressive think tank Data for Progress asked 1,176 likely voters about eight key Trump administration agenda items, including pushing for staffing cuts at the Social Security Administration; signing the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is projected to raise the cost of living for millions as people will be shut out of food assistance and Medicaid; and firing tens of thousands of federal workers—and found that some of Americans' biggest concerns are about the fate of the agency that SSA chief Frank Bisignano has pledged to make "digital-first."
Sixty-three percent of respondents said they oppose the proposed layoffs of about 7,000 SSA staffers, or about 12% of its workforce—which, as progressives including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have warned, have led to longer wait times for beneficiaries who rely on their monthly earned Social Security checks to pay for groceries, housing, medications, and other essentials.
Forty-five percent of people surveyed said they were "very concerned" about the cuts.
Only the Trump administration's decision not to release files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case was more opposed by respondents, with 65% saying they disapproved of the failure to disclose the documents, which involve the financier and convicted sex offender who was a known friend of the president. But fewer voters—about 39%—said they were "very concerned" about the files.
Among "persuadable voters"—those who said they were as likely to vote for candidates from either major political party in upcoming elections—70% said they opposed the cuts to Social Security.
The staffing cuts have forced Social Security field offices across the country to close, and as Sanders said Wednesday as he introduced the Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act, the 1-800 number beneficiaries have to call to receive their benefits "is a mess," with staffers overwhelmed due to the loss of more than 4,000 employees so far.
As Common Dreams reported in July, another policy change this month is expected to leave senior citizens and beneficiaries with disabilities unable to perform routine tasks related to their benefits over the phone, as they have for decades—forcing them to rely on a complicated online verification process.
Late last month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted that despite repeated claims from Trump that he won't attempt to privatize Social Security, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act offers a "backdoor way" for Republicans to do just that.
The law's inclusion of tax-deferred investment accounts called "Trump accounts" that will be available to US citizen children starting next July could allow the GOP to privatize the program as it has hoped to for decades.
"Right now, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are quietly creating problems for Social Security so they can later hand it off to their private equity buddies," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Thursday.
Marking the program's 90th anniversary, Sanders touted his Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act.
"This legislation would reverse all of the cuts that the Trump administration has made to the Social Security Administration," said Sanders. "It would make it easier, not harder, for seniors and people with disabilities to receive the benefits they have earned over the phone."
"Each and every year, some 30,000 people die—they die while waiting for their Social Security benefits to be approved," said Sanders. "And Trump's cuts will make this terrible situation even worse. We cannot and must not allow that to happen."
To Beat Back Trump's GOP in 2026, Progressive Leader Says 'Corporate' Dems Must Go
"Voters have made their feelings clear," said the leader of Justice Democrats. "The majority do not see themselves in this party and do not believe in its leaders or many of its representatives."
Aug 14, 2025
A top progressive leader has given her prescription for how the Democratic Party can begin to retake power from US President Donald Trump: Ousting "corporate-funded" candidates.
Justice Democrats executive director Alexandra Rojas wrote Thursday in The Guardian that, "If the Democratic Party wants to win back power in 2028," its members need to begin to redefine themselves in the 2026 midterms.
"Voters have made their feelings clear, a majority do not see themselves in this party and do not believe in its leaders or many of its representatives," Rojas said. "They need a new generation of leaders with fresh faces and bold ideas, unbought by corporate super [political action committees] and billionaire donors, to give them a new path and vision to believe in."
Despite Trump's increasing unpopularity, a Gallup poll from July 31 found that the Democratic Party still has record-low approval across the country.
Rojas called for "working-class, progressive primary challenges to the overwhelming number of corporate Democratic incumbents who have rightfully been dubbed as do-nothing electeds."
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in June, nearly two-thirds of self-identified Democrats said they desired new leadership, with many believing that the party did not share top priorities, like universal healthcare, affordable childcare, and higher taxes on the rich.
Young voters were especially dissatisfied with the current state of the party and were much less likely to believe the party shared their priorities.
Democrats have made some moves to address their "gerontocracy" problem—switching out the moribund then-President Joe Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race and swapping out longtime House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) for the younger Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.).
But Rojas says a face-lift for the party is not enough. They also need fresh ideas.
"Voters are also not simply seeking to replace their aging corporate shill representatives with younger corporate shills," she said. "More of the same from a younger generation is still more of the same."
Outside of a "small handful of outspoken progressives," she said the party has often been too eager to kowtow to Trump and tow the line of billionaire donors.
"Too many Democratic groups, and even some that call themselves progressive, are encouraging candidates' silence in the face of lobbies like [the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee] (AIPAC) and crypto's multimillion-dollar threats," she said.
A Public Citizen report found that in 2024, Democratic candidates and aligned PACs received millions of dollars from crypto firms like Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreesen Horowitz.
According to OpenSecrets, 58% of the 212 Democrats elected to the House in 2024—135 of them—received money from AIPAC, with an average contribution of $117,334. In the Senate, 17 Democrats who won their elections received donations—$195,015 on average.
The two top Democrats in Congress—Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—both have long histories of support from AIPAC, and embraced crypto with open arms after the industry flooded the 2024 campaign with cash.
"Too often, we hear from candidates and members who claim they are with us on the policy, but can't speak out on it because AIPAC or crypto will spend against them," Rojas said. "Silence is cowardice, and cowardice inspires no one."
Rojas noted Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who was elected in 2022 despite an onslaught of attacks from AIPAC and who has since gone on to introduce legislation to ban super PACs from federal elections, as an example of this model's success.
"The path to more Democratic victories," Rojas said, "is not around, behind, and under these lobbies, but it's right through them, taking them head-on and ridding them from our politics once and for all."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.