SLAPP Lawsuits are a major way people in power silence dissent to conduct business without environmental or social accountability.
Powerful corporations have developed many tactics for silencing protests and public debate around unlawful or controversial activities. SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) lawsuits and other forms of legal harassment are common strategies for closing civic spaces and silencing opponents through isolation, intimidation, and financial and psychological burdens. They are a major way people in power silence dissent to conduct business without environmental or social accountability.
Trump has used SLAPP tactics against opponents as a private (really rich) citizen. Seven cases of the thousands of lawsuits he has been party to have been efforts to silence authors, media, and individuals. In his SLAPP case against author Tim O’Brien, Trump said “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about”. Allies of Trump, like Big Oil and other corporate billionaires, would likely benefit from a lack of interference by a Trump administration if they levy SLAPP cases against critics.
The Trump campaign and Project 2025 authors agree that their idea of fixing the federal government is “to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will”. Major policy changes from the Trump campaign and Project 2025 would give the president authoritarian control over the federal government, including power to use legal tactics and federal agents to silence opponents. Trump has long planned to see this through. An expansion of executive power could be abused and undermine fundamental freedoms of speech and assembly, and threaten those who speak out against issues of public concern.
Taken together, SLAPP cases from the private sector and weaponization of executive power in the public sector create a one-two punch against activism and the right to dissent and protest.
Private Sector SLAPPs
SLAPPs and related legal tactics have been used to silence environmental and social justice activists, especially by fossil fuel corporations and the ultra-wealthy. As a private citizen, Trump sued comedian Bill Maher for comparing him to an orangutan and former Miss Pennsylvania Sheena Monnin for criticizing the Trump-owned Miss Universe Organization and calling the Miss USA contest “rigged”. He sued author Tim O’Brien for writing that Trump was “only” worth around $150-250 millions in a 2005 biography. He demanded $5 billion from O’Brien in damages for such “vile statements” – the case was later dismissed.
In his 2016 campaign, Trump has called for opening up libel laws that would make it easier to sue critics and “win lots of money”. By relaxing libel laws, Trump would reduce protections for news organizations, journalists, and other groups to oppose and critique powerful individuals and corporations. Weakening libel laws would make it easier to file SLAPP cases. Leaders should be passing federal anti-SLAPP laws that prevent egregious, vindictive abuses of legal systems.
Big donors to the Trump campaign like Elon Musk and Kelcy Warren have also used SLAPP cases against their critics. Musk’s lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate attempted to intimidate and stop researchers from investigating hate speech and misinformation being posted on X (the case was thrown out by the judge). Musk also sued nonprofit Media Matters for their report on antisemitic and pro-Nazi content on X. Warren, an oil and gas magnate, issued a SLAPP lawsuit against Beto O’Rourke after he critiqued Warren’s massive profits during the 2021 Texas winter storm. The case was dismissed. Warren’s company Energy Transfer is currently suing Greenpeace in the US and Greenpeace International in another SLAPP suit for standing in solidarity with water protectors in opposition of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
EarthRights found 152 cases where the oil and gas industry used SLAPPs, legal harassment, and similar tactics against opponents between 2012 and 2022. These cases directly attack constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights to speak on threats to the public. Often, cases and legal tactics levied by the oil and gas industry are particularly expensive and aggressive against activists. While some US states have adopted some anti-SLAPP legislation, many are still at risk and there are no federal protections against such tactics.
Dangerous Expansions of Executive Power
On the campaign trail, Trump has threatened to use revenge prosecutions against his rivals and opponents. During his first term in office, Trump sought to punish his perceived enemies using legal action. If he wins another presidential term, it is likely that he will seek to fulfill his promises by abusing presidential powers once in office.
Project 2025 is a detailed pro-Trump agenda that echoes many of policies from Trump’s administration and promises he’s made on the campaign trail. A top priority from both groups is to transform the Department of Justice (DOJ). Instead of being insulated from political considerations (as has been the norm since the Watergate scandal), DOJ would be expected to litigate according to the presidential agenda. Given the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, this chilling proposition makes the president both more powerful and less accountable. Project 2025 even advocates for DOJ to compel state and local prosecutors to follow federal priorities.
This restructuring of the DOJ weaponizes the department into a political unit that would enable the president to impose legal action on opponents, or investigative journalists, activists, nonprofits, academics, politicians, and individuals the president disfavors. The FBI would likely refocus its priorities to investigating groups that speak out against the president or powerful allies, a power Trump has called for many times.
Together with disastrous environmental and climate rollbacks that harm jobs and public health, a second Trump presidency could weaken democratic freedoms, justice, and public participation in ways that could exacerbate legal harassment in the public and private sector by:
- Centralizing power in the executive branch by making the Department of Justice an instrument for carrying out the presidential agenda
- Establishing presidential power to investigate and seek retribution from opponents, including journalists, activists, nonprofits, academics, and politicians
- Implementing Schedule F to ensure government staff are loyal to the presidential agenda and can be reprimanded or replaced if they are not, even career civil servants and high ranking officials
- Deploying the military against civilians and abusing the Insurrection Act against protestors
- Coordinating efforts to overthrow future democratic elections, including coercion of foreign governments to interfere in elections and using the Justice Department to defend false claims of voter fraud or election subversion
Trump has denied involvement with Project 2025 despite sweeping support of many of his former advisors and staff and evidence that he will support the Project’s initiatives. Trump has supported a similar agenda called the America First Agenda (AFA) to publically distance himself from the disfavorable Project 2025. The AFA comes from the far-right American First Policy Institute (AFPI) and was created by former senior advisors from the Trump administration.
While the AFA is less prescriptive and detailed, it calls for many of the same changes as Project 2025, including stripping protections for the federal workforce and deregulation of the fossil fuel industry. The AFPI celebrated the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity, stating that presidents should not have “fear of being prosecuted in the future”. The organization has already used legal action to attack voter rights in collaboration with America Legal First, whose leadership authored Project 2025’s chapter on the Department of Justice.
Abuse of Legal Tactics is a Global Threat
Amnesty International lists SLAPPs and risks to the right to protest as major human rights threats in the U.S. since at least 2016, but these attacks are part of a global trend against dissent. Expanding executive power, including the weaponization of federal prosecutors, and the legal harassment in the private sector are raising the costs of free speech and protests for ordinary people. SLAPPs coupled with Trump’s calls to loosen libel laws and proposed abuses of presidential power suggest that there will be weakened protections for activists against SLAPP cases or other legal tactics that threaten First Amendment rights.
SLAPP cases are just one way that powerful corporations and governments silence opposition and strip First Amendment protections. Trump and allied organizations’ approach would create conditions that make it easier to suppress dissent and limit public participation in crucial debates about our energy future, climate policies, and the power of corporations and the ultra-wealthy. Sign the open letter to stand in solidarity against Energy Transfer’s meritless lawsuit and attacks on the right to dissent and protest.
Sign our open letter to stand in solidarity against Energy Transfer’s meritless lawsuit and attacks on the right to dissent and protest.