In early 2016, President Donald Trump promised to make it easier to sue the press. Three and a half years later, he is no closer to fulfilling that promise.

The declaration came at a Fort Worth, Texas, rally in February 2016. Trump said he planned to "open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

That's easier said than done. 

Thanks to the First Amendment and a landmark Supreme Court decision, the United States offers broad free speech protections for journalists. And states generally create their own libel laws, making it harder for sweeping changes on the federal level.

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court established the burden of proof that public officials and public figures must meet to win a libel suit. It's not enough for officials to show that a publication simply published false information about them — the court ruled that they must also prove the information was published with "actual malice." That means the journalist either knowingly published false information or did so with "reckless disregard" for the truth.

Historically, that standard has been tough to meet.

"In only a handful of cases over the last (few) decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation," according to the Digital Media Law Project.

To change the burden of proof for public officials, Trump would need the Supreme Court to overturn Times v. Sullivan. Although the president has been successful in tilting the ideological leaning of the court, experts say the likelihood of that reversal is slim.

"With the exception of Justice Clarence Thomas, there seems to be little appetite on the court today to reconsider Sullivan or to eliminate the actual malice standard as it now applies to both public officials and public figures who sue for libel," said Clay Calvert, director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, in an email. "The court also hasn't taken up a case so far that would address that issue during its next term."

Those slim odds haven't stopped Trump from suing the press himself.

In February and March, the president's campaign filed defamation lawsuits against the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN. Those suits allege that the news outlets knowingly published false information about Trump and the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

A more recent lawsuit, filed against an NBC affiliate in Rhinelander, Wisc., in April, alleges that WJFW-TV defamed the president by airing an ad from Joe Biden's presidential campaign. The ad, which we rated False, was edited in a way that made it look like Trump said the coronavirus is Democrats' "new hoax."

First Amendment law experts have said those lawsuits, while they could produce a chilling effect for news outlets covering the president, likely do not meet the burden of proof set forth in Times v. Sullivan.

"These suits won't succeed on the merits," said Jonathan Peters, an assistant journalism professor at the University of Georgia and the press freedom correspondent for the Columbia Journalism Review, in an email. "They focus on opinion pieces, and there are broad First Amendment protections for statements of opinion and for exaggerated, figurative, and hyperbolic language. Those protections are not limitless, but they would apply here."

As of now, Trump has not managed to change the country's libel laws through a Supreme Court case, litigation or other means. And Congress has not proposed legislation that would alter existing libel laws. 

We rate this promise Stalled.