An Iowa Judge Rejects Trump’s Unconstitutional Attempt To Recover Damages for ‘Fake News’

On Wednesday, an Iowa judge dismissed a lawsuit in which President Donald Trump preposterously claimed that The Des Moines Register committed consumer fraud when it published poll results he did not like prior to the 2024 election. Those surprising results, which gave Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, a lead in Iowa, turned out to be far off the mark. But according to Trump, that forecast was not only embarrassing but also illegal.

Trump’s lawsuit, which he first filed in December 2024, alleged that the poll violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, justifying damages to compensate him for “the extensive time and resources” required to “mitigate and counteract the harms” caused by the Register‘s reporting. That argument, if accepted, would expose journalists to the chilling threat of civil liability whenever someone claims they got a story wrong.

“At its core, the Plaintiffs’ Petition seeks to stretch both Iowa statutory and common law beyond their current bounds, turning speech that enjoys the highest category of First Amendment protection into a liability,” Polk County District Court Judge Scott J. Beattie writes in his ruling against Trump. “After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court must conclude that the protection is too great and the reach is too far. The case must therefore be dismissed.”

In addition to the Register, Trump sued pollster J. Ann Selzer, who conducted the survey at the heart of the case. “This lawsuit was laughable from the beginning and never should have been brought,” says Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which represented Selzer. “The First Amendment does not allow anyone in government, least of all the president, to punish people under the banner of ‘fake news.’ That may work for him as a campaign slogan, but it is not a thing in the law.”

The fraud exception to the First Amendment, Beattie notes, requires a provably false statement aimed at persuading someone to “part with money or property of value in reliance upon it.” Trump’s lawsuit, he concludes, fails to allege either element.

“A poll is simply an estimate,” Beattie writes. “A poll reports responses from a sample of voters and includes a reported margin of error. It is based on a known methodology, and concerns an event that has not yet happened. Things of that nature are not the sort of things that can be said to be true or false in the manner required by the fraud exception.”

Nor did Trump allege that he suffered an economic loss because he relied on statements by the Register or Selzer. “The constitutional fraud exception reaches lies told to obtain money or property,” Beattie notes. “The misrepresentation must be made in the course of inducing the plaintiff to part with money, or property of value, in reliance upon it. None of that has been pleaded here.”

Although Beattie says those failures would be enough to dispose of the case, he also addresses the specific elements required to prove a violation of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. He finds that Trump’s allegations fail to satisfy those requirements and likewise do not meet the common-law tests for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. “Each cause of action the Plaintiffs invoke requires a connection between these parties that the Petition never pleads,” he says.

Selzer’s poll and the Register‘s reporting of its results “are fully protected political speech, and the Petition does not allege the elements that would place that speech within the fraud exception,” Beattie concludes. “Independently, the Petition states no claim under Iowa law.”

Beattie dismissed Trump’s lawsuit with prejudice, meaning the president cannot try again. But despite the fundamental failures that Beattie identifies, Trump was able to tie Selzer and the Register up in court for nearly two years. “Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success,” FIRE says. “In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment.”

Last year, Beattie notes, Iowa legislators approved the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which “directs Iowa courts to resolve claims arising from the exercise of free speech on a matter of public concern at the earliest available stage.” The law, which targets “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPPs), also requires unsuccessful plaintiffs in such cases to pay the defendants’ legal expenses. But according to FIRE, Trump “purposefully filed” his latest complaint “just hours” before the anti-SLAPP law took effect.

In a Texas case based on similarly absurd fraud theories, Trump managed to extort $16 million from Paramount. Trump claimed CBS, which Paramount owned, had committed consumer fraud by editing a pre-election 60 Minutes interview with Harris in a way that made her seem slightly more cogent. That supposed fraud, he averred, had caused him “at least” $20 billion in damages.

After Trump filed the original version of that lawsuit in October 2024, CBS accurately described it as “completely without merit” and vowed to “vigorously defend against it.” But Paramount’s executives evidently thought $16 million was a small price to pay if it assuaged the president’s wrath and avoided trouble with the Federal Communications Commission, which had launched a spurious “news distortion” investigation of the Harris interview and was mulling whether to approve Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media.

As that settlement shows, frivolous lawsuits and presidential power are a dangerous combination. But unlike Paramount, the Register and Selzer were determined to resist Trump’s attempt to treat “fake news” as a cause of action.

“This was never about ‘consumer fraud,'” FIRE says. “Nor was it about winning in court. Trump’s lawsuit was about intimidating perceived critics into silence by making them waste time and money on lawyers to defend perfectly legal speech.”