Trump’s Des Moines Register Lawsuit: Remand and the Donnelly Ruling

The Trump Des Moines Register lawsuit is a consumer-fraud and misrepresentation case Donald Trump filed in December 2024 against pollster J. Ann Selzer, her firm Selzer & Company, the Des Moines Register, and its parent Gannett, claiming the paper’s final pre-election Iowa Poll was fabricated to hurt him. After roughly a year bouncing between state and federal court, the case is now pending in Polk County District Court in Iowa, with discovery on hold and no ruling yet on the merits.¹

The Poll at the Center of the Case

Selzer & Co. conducted the Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll from October 28 to October 31, 2024, surveying 808 likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points. Published on November 2, three days before the election, it showed Kamala Harris leading Trump 47% to 44% in Iowa.²

Trump carried Iowa by roughly 13 points, about 56% to 43%, meaning the poll missed the final margin by around 16 points.³ The Register later acknowledged the poll “did not reflect the ultimate margin of President Trump’s Election Day victory in Iowa.”¹ Trump called the poll “voter suppression.” Selzer, who had polled Iowa on contract since 1997, called the result “a spectacular miss” but rejected accusations of fabrication, saying, “We paid the phone bank to do it. We’ve got the receipt for that.”⁴

Who Is Suing, and for What

Trump filed the original complaint in Polk County District Court on December 16, 2024, naming Selzer, Selzer & Company, the Des Moines Register and Tribune Company, and Gannett Co. as defendants. The only initial claim was under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, alleging the poll was “fake” and published to “foster enthusiasm for Democrats.”⁵

An amended complaint filed January 31, 2025, added two common-law claims, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, and brought in two additional plaintiffs: U.S. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks and former Iowa state Senator Bradley Zaun. Both are Republicans who said the poll damaged their own campaigns.⁵

The strategy behind the pleading is notable. Trump’s team, led on strategy by attorney Edward A. Paltzik, has framed disputed media content as deceptive trade practices under state consumer-fraud law rather than as defamation, avoiding the “actual malice” standard public figures must meet in traditional libel suits.⁶ Iowa-based attorney Alan Ostergren is lead local counsel.⁷ Selzer and her firm are represented pro bono by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which announced its involvement on January 7, 2025, and described the suit as a “SLAPP” — a strategic lawsuit against public participation.⁸ The Register and Gannett have said they will “vigorously defend” their First Amendment rights.⁹

What the Plaintiffs Want

The plaintiffs are seeking damages and an injunction barring publication of “any further deceptive polls.” Trump has characterized the poll’s release as “brazen election interference.” Miller-Meeks points to costs from a recount in her narrow race, and Zaun claims the poll’s “momentum” contributed to the loss of his state senate seat.⁵¹⁰

How the Case Ended Up Back in State Court

The procedural path has been unusual. One day after Trump filed in Polk County, Gannett removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, where it was assigned to Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger under docket 4:24-cv-00449.¹¹

Trump’s team tried to defeat federal jurisdiction by adding Iowa-based plaintiffs Miller-Meeks and Zaun, an apparent attempt to break the diversity of citizenship that had enabled removal. Judge Ebinger ruled those plaintiffs were not indispensable and ordered Trump to file an amended complaint without them. In May 2025 she also denied a motion to remand the case to state court.¹²¹³

The defendants’ motions to dismiss, filed February 21, 2025, on First Amendment and other grounds, were still pending when Trump voluntarily dismissed the federal case on June 30, 2025, and refiled in Polk County.¹⁴¹

The timing was pointed. Iowa’s legislature had unanimously passed House File 472, an anti-SLAPP statute modeled on the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. Governor Kim Reynolds signed it on May 20, 2025, and it took effect July 1, 2025, providing a fast-track dismissal mechanism and fee-shifting for suits targeting protected speech.¹⁵¹⁶ By refiling one day before the effective date, Trump’s team sought to keep the new law from applying.¹

Judge Ebinger initially resisted the voluntary dismissal, and the federal case remained in limbo because a pending interlocutory appeal arguably stripped the trial court of jurisdiction to dismiss. In October 2025, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit granted a petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering the federal case treated as dismissed without prejudice and clearing the way for the state-court case to proceed.¹³

What the Defense Is Arguing

The heart of the defense is the First Amendment. In its federal-court motion to dismiss, FIRE argued there is “no such thing as a claim for ‘fraudulent news'” in American law, that political polling is core political speech, and that plaintiffs were using the word “fraud” as an end run around constitutional protection.⁵

The defense also attacked the fraud theory on its own terms. Fraud under Iowa law requires a “transactional nexus” — a misrepresentation made to induce someone to part with money or property. Publishing a poll, the defendants argued, is not such a transaction, and a poll is not “consumer merchandise” under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, which covers goods for “personal, family, or household uses.”¹⁷

On damages, the defense noted that Trump and Miller-Meeks both won their races, and the Iowa Poll did not cover Zaun’s state senate race at all. It also argued that campaign spending was made by separate legal entities rather than the candidates personally, and that Iowa law makes the state, not candidates, responsible for the cost of recounts. FIRE called the request for an injunction against future polls a “classic prior restraint.”⁵

The Donnelly Ruling and Why It Matters

A parallel case is shaping the state court’s calendar. In early 2025, Dennis Donnelly, a Register subscriber, filed a proposed class action in federal court against the Register, Gannett, and Selzer, claiming the poll damaged the value of his subscription. His claims overlapped heavily with Trump’s, including violations of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, professional malpractice, and interference with the right to vote.¹⁸

On November 6, 2025, Judge Ebinger dismissed the Donnelly case with prejudice, ruling that Donnelly failed to show the poll was published with “actual malice” and that “a party cannot evade First Amendment scrutiny” by relabeling a claim as fraud. The court held that polling results are not “actionable false representation” merely because the outcome diverges from the prediction.¹⁹

Donnelly appealed to the 8th Circuit. In April 2026, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by 46 media organizations, and the American Association for Public Opinion Research filed amicus briefs urging the court to affirm the dismissal.²⁰²¹ The Register’s attorneys have asked the Polk County court to pause Trump’s case until the appeals court rules, arguing the decision could resolve threshold questions common to both suits.²²

Where the Case Stands Now

As of January 30, 2026, the case is before Polk County District Judge Scott Beattie. At a hearing that day on the Register’s motion to stay discovery pending the Donnelly appeal, Judge Beattie extended a previous stay on discovery and took the matter under advisement, with a written ruling expected within about two weeks.²³

Discovery in the case raises an unresolved question: how does a state court manage discovery involving a sitting president? Trump’s attorney Alan Ostergren argued the president’s involvement should be “minimal, if at all,” proposing written interrogatories instead of in-person participation. Defense attorney Nicholas Klinefeldt countered that if Trump is claiming personal damages, he must make himself and his records available, and that limiting discovery would amount to “an investigation of the press” without accountability.²²

Judge Beattie openly acknowledged the difficulty, citing concerns about “federalism, separation of powers and national security” and questioning his practical ability to enforce compliance against a sitting president. He noted he can impose $500 contempt fines or order jail time but expects significant “push back.”²³ The defendants have argued the case should remain on hold until Trump’s term expires.²⁴

No court has ruled on the merits of Trump’s claims against the Register and Selzer. FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick has said the suit will meet the same fate as the dismissed Donnelly case, calling its arguments “frivolous.”²⁵ The Knight First Amendment Institute has called the suit “a non-starter under the First Amendment.”¹⁰

1
NBC News. Trump Lawsuit Iowa Poll Ann Selzer Des Moines Register
2
Des Moines Register. Iowa Poll: Kamala Harris Leads Donald Trump
3
The Guardian. Iowa Pollster J. Ann Selzer Quits
4
Iowa Public Radio. Ann Selzer Clarifies Her Exit From Political Polling
5
FIRE. Trump v. Selzer Motion and Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
6
Variety. Donald Trump Des Moines Register Ann Selzer Poll
7
Ostergren Law. Alan R. Ostergren, PC
8
Bleeding Heartland. Free Speech Group FIRE to Defend Selzer in Trump Lawsuit
9
First Amendment Watch. FIRE’s Robert Corn-Revere on Trump’s Election Interference Suit Against Iowa Pollster
10
Knight First Amendment Institute. Knight Institute Says Trump Lawsuit Undermines Public Discourse and Press Freedom
11
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Trump v. Selzer
12
Above the Law. Trump’s Lawyers Go to Iowa to Learn How to CivPro
13
Iowa Capital Dispatch. Trump’s Lawsuit Against Des Moines Register Pollster Heads to State Court
14
CourtListener. Trump v. Selzer Docket
15
Institute for Free Speech. Historic Win for Iowa Free Speech: Anti-SLAPP Protections Now Law
16
ACLU of Iowa. New Iowa Law Prevents Bogus Lawsuits Silencing People
17
FIRE. FIRE’s Defense of Pollster J. Ann Selzer Against Donald Trump’s Lawsuit
18
Des Moines Register. Iowa Poll Lawsuit Subscriber Dismissed
19
Reason. This Ruling Does Not Bode Well for Trump’s Attempt to Portray Journalism as Consumer Fraud
20
RCFP. Donnelly v. Des Moines Register
21
AAPOR. AAPOR Amicus Brief, Donnelly v. Des Moines Register
22
Courthouse News Service. Trump Asks Iowa Court to Let Suit Against Des Moines Register Proceed
23
Des Moines Register. Trump Des Moines Register Polk County Court Hearing Iowa Poll
24
KCRG. Judge Hears Arguments Trump Lawsuit Against Des Moines Register, J. Ann Selzer
25
First Amendment Center at MTSU. Federal District Court Dismisses Class Action Suit Against Iowa Pollster J. Ann Selzer