President Trump has just pulled the plug on a high-profile lawsuit against an Iowa pollster whose predictions missed the mark by a country mile.
The Hill reported that in a surprising turn of events, Trump's legal team dropped its case against J. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register, as revealed in a court filing on Monday.
The saga kicked off in December when the lawsuit was filed in state court, alleging that Selzer and the Register violated Iowa's consumer fraud laws with a poll that painted an inaccurate picture of the presidential race in Iowa.
That poll, released in the final stretch of the 2024 presidential contest, suggested then-Vice President Kamala Harris would take Iowa by a slim 3-point margin.
Reality delivered a stark contrast, as Trump clinched the state with a commanding 14-point lead, exposing the poll as more fiction than forecast.
Trump’s attorneys didn’t mince words, claiming in the lawsuit, “Selzer had a huge platform,” implying her influence amplified the damage of what they called a deliberate deception.
Let’s dismantle that notion with a dose of skepticism—while polling errors sting, proving intent is a steep hill to climb, especially when public opinion is as fickle as a Midwest windstorm.
By February, the case had shifted to federal court, setting the stage for a broader showdown that never came to pass.
Now, with the lawsuit dropped, it’s unclear why Trump’s team backed off, as his attorneys didn’t respond to requests for comment, leaving us to ponder the strategy behind this retreat.
Meanwhile, Selzer herself announced in November that she’s hanging up her polling hat, having already chosen not to renew her contract with the Des Moines Register.
Was this a quiet exit from a storm of scrutiny, or just a planned retirement? One can’t help but wonder if the legal heat played a role, even if indirectly.
Adding another layer, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) stepped in to represent Selzer in January, signaling a defense rooted in free expression over faulty numbers.
Bob Corn-Revere, FIRE’s chief counsel, noted, “There is no settlement,” adding that the legal team is mulling over future steps, whatever those might be.
That’s a polite way of saying ‘stay tuned,’ but it’s hard not to see this as a fizzle rather than a bang—lawsuits like these often promise thunder but deliver drizzle.
Zooming out, this isn’t Trump’s only tango with the media; over the past year, he’s ramped up legal challenges, including a settled $15 million defamation case against ABC News and ongoing battles with CBS’s “60 Minutes” and threats against The New York Times and CNN.
While conservatives might cheer this pushback against what many see as a biased press, there’s a fine line between accountability and stifling discourse that even right-leaning folks should watch with caution.
After all, a free press—warts and all—is a cornerstone of liberty, and while polls like Selzer’s can mislead, silencing them through litigation risks a slippery slope.
So, as this Iowa chapter closes, the bigger question looms: will Trump’s legal salvos reshape media narratives, or are they just costly shots across the bow in a culture war that’s already overheated?