Trump sued The Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer under Iowa consumer-fraud law over an unfavorable pre-election poll

On December 16, 2024, President-elect Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against The Des Moines Register, its parent company Gannett, and veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. The suit targeted a Selzer poll published in the Register three days before the November 2024 election that showed Trump trailing Vice President Kamala Harris in Iowa by three points. Trump went on to win the state by more than 13 points, and his complaint alleged the poll amounted to "brazen election interference" designed to influence the outcome.

Press-freedom advocates and First Amendment scholars characterized the suit as a retaliatory action — an attempt to use consumer-protection law, which is ordinarily aimed at deceptive commercial practices, to punish a news organization and a pollster for political speech and to deter unfavorable coverage and polling. The Register and Selzer said the poll reflected Selzer's standard methodology and defended their reporting as protected expression.

This entry records the filing of the lawsuit itself. Turning a consumer-fraud statute into a vehicle to penalize a newspaper and an independent pollster for publishing an inaccurate but constitutionally protected poll uses the courts as an instrument of retaliation against the press, and it pressures news organizations toward self-censorship — which is why the action belongs in the record.

Updates

2025-10-27 — Trump dropped the federal suit and refiled in Iowa state court [4, 5]

After removing the case to federal court, Trump dismissed the federal version of the suit and refiled against the Register and Selzer in Iowa's Polk County District Court, where the litigation proceeded under state law.

2026-07-10 — Court weighed dismissal as judge cited a potential chilling effect [6]

At a hearing on the defendants' First Amendment motion to dismiss in Polk County District Court, Trump's attorney acknowledged there was no evidence the poll constituted fraud but argued the consumer-fraud suit should proceed; the judge noted the suit's potential "chilling effect" on free speech.