Pulitzer Board Cites Trump’s Own Legal Arguments to Halt Defamation Lawsuit
Donald Trump in New York City on Nov. 6, 2023. Adam Gray / AFP via Getty Images file
The Pulitzer Board has requested a court to halt all defamation proceedings in President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against them, citing Trump’s own legal theories as part of their argument, CNN reported Monday. Trump sued the Pulitzer Board for awarding prizes to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
His earlier attempts to sue the two outlets directly for their coverage had failed. In a new filing, the Pulitzer Board highlighted Trump’s past legal arguments in unrelated civil lawsuits, where he had claimed that legal proceedings against him should be paused while he was in office.
“The Pulitzer Board pointed out that Trump previously sought stays in other civil lawsuits where he was the defendant, saying the suits should be halted while he is in office because of questions of whether the US Constitution bars state courts from exercising jurisdiction over a sitting president,” the report noted.
The board’s lawyers specifically referenced a case brought against Trump by investors in Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of his social media platform, Truth Social. In that case, Trump’s legal team argued that “(c) commonsense favors a stay of this case until the end of the President’s term,” so that “President Trump can devote his time and energies to America’s problems,” according to the filing.
The board’s filing emphasized the inconsistency in Trump’s legal strategy, noting that his previous arguments to delay lawsuits while in office should logically apply to this case now that he has returned to the presidency. While Trump’s criminal cases have been paused due to the Justice Department’s standing policy against prosecuting sitting presidents, a number of civil cases involving him remain active.
These include the Pulitzer Board lawsuit, a $500 million judgment for civil fraud won by New York Attorney General Letitia James, and defamation and sexual abuse judgments secured by E. Jean Carroll. Legal analysts have pointed out the irony of the Pulitzer Board leveraging Trump’s own legal logic against him.
The board’s request, if granted, would delay the defamation lawsuit, potentially pushing it beyond Trump’s current term in office. The lawsuit itself stems from Trump’s longstanding grievance over media coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 election, which he has repeatedly claimed was biased and inaccurate.
However, both The New York Times and The Washington Post stand by their Pulitzer-winning reporting, which was extensively vetted by the Pulitzer Board. As litigation continues, the Pulitzer Board’s strategy of turning Trump’s own arguments into a defense highlights the complexity and contradictions of Trump’s legal battles—both past and present.
