Trump Can Be Sued for Jan. 6 Riot Harm, Justice Dept. Says

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo with the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington. (AP)
In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo with the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington. (AP)
TT
20

Trump Can Be Sued for Jan. 6 Riot Harm, Justice Dept. Says

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo with the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington. (AP)
In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo with the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington. (AP)

Former President Donald Trump can be sued by injured Capitol Police officers and Democratic lawmakers over the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol, the Justice Department said Thursday in a federal court case testing Trump's legal vulnerability for his speech before the riot.

The Justice Department told a Washington federal appeals court in a legal filing that it should allow the lawsuits to move forward, rejecting Trump’s argument that he is immune from the claims.

The department said it takes no position on the lawsuits’ claims that the former president’s words incited the attack on the Capitol. Nevertheless, Justice lawyers told the court that a president would not be protected by "absolute immunity" if his words were found to have been an "incitement of imminent private violence."

"As the Nation’s leader and head of state, the President has 'an extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf,' they wrote. "But that traditional function is one of public communication and persuasion, not incitement of imminent private violence."

The brief was filed by lawyers of the Justice Department's Civil Division and has no bearing on a separate criminal investigation by a department special counsel into whether Trump can be criminally charged over efforts to undo President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election ahead of the Capitol riot. In fact, the lawyers note that they are not taking a position with respect to potential criminal liability for Trump or anyone else.

Trump’s lawyers have argued he was acting within the bounds of his official duties and had no intention to spark violence when he called on thousands of supporters to "march to the Capitol" and "fight like hell" before the riot erupted.

"The actions of rioters do not strip President Trump of immunity," his lawyers wrote in court papers. "In the run-up to January 6th and on the day itself, President Trump was acting well within the scope of ordinary presidential action when he engaged in open discussion and debate about the integrity of the 2020 election."

A Trump spokesperson said Thursday that the president "repeatedly called for peace, patriotism, and respect for our men and women of law enforcement" on Jan. 6 and that the courts "should rule in favor of President Trump in short order and dismiss these frivolous lawsuits."

The case is among many legal woes facing Trump as he mounts another bid for the White House in 2024.

A prosecutor in Georgia has been investigating whether Trump and his allies broke the law as they tried to overturn his election defeat in that state. Trump is also under federal criminal investigation over top secret documents found at his Florida estate.

In the separate investigation into Trump and his allies' efforts to keep the Republican president in power, special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he will fight the subpoena.

Trump is appealing a decision by a federal judge in Washington, who last year rejected efforts by the former president to toss out the conspiracy civil lawsuits filed by the lawmakers and police officers. US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Trump’s words during a rally before the violent storming of the US Capitol were likely "words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment."

"Only in the most extraordinary circumstances could a court not recognize that the First Amendment protects a President’s speech," Mehta wrote in his February 2022 ruling. "But the court believes this is that case."

One of the lawsuits, filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., alleges that "Trump directly incited the violence at the Capitol that followed and then watched approvingly as the building was overrun." Two other lawsuits were also filed, one by other House Democrats and another by officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby.

The House Democrats' lawsuit cites a federal civil rights law that was enacted to counter the Ku Klux Klan’s intimidation of officials. The cases describe in detail how Trump and others spread baseless claims of election fraud, both before and after the 2020 presidential election was declared, and charge that they helped to rile up the thousands of rioters before they stormed the Capitol.

The lawsuits seek damages for the physical and emotional injuries the plaintiffs sustained during the insurrection.

Even if the appeals court agrees that Trump can be sued, those who brought the lawsuit still face an uphill battle. They would need to show there was more than fiery rhetoric, but a direct and intentional call for imminent violence, said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor.

"We are really far away from knowing that even if the court allows the lawsuit to go forward whether they would be successful," she said. "Even if the court says hypothetically you can bring an action against a president, I think they're likely to draw a line that is very generous to the president's protected conduct."

In its filing, the Justice Department cautioned that the "court must take care not to adopt rules that would unduly chill legitimate presidential communication" or saddle a president with burdensome and intrusive lawsuits.

"In exercising their traditional communicative functions, Presidents routinely address controversial issues that are the subject of passionate feelings," the department wrote. "Presidents may at times use strong rhetoric. And some who hear that rhetoric may overreact, or even respond with violence."



US Envoy Calls Enrichment ‘Red Line’ Ahead of New Iran Talks

US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff looks on during a swearing in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 06 May 2025. (EPA)
US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff looks on during a swearing in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 06 May 2025. (EPA)
TT
20

US Envoy Calls Enrichment ‘Red Line’ Ahead of New Iran Talks

US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff looks on during a swearing in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 06 May 2025. (EPA)
US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff looks on during a swearing in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 06 May 2025. (EPA)

The United States and Iran will hold a new round of nuclear talks Sunday in Oman ahead of a visit to the region by Donald Trump, whose key negotiator staked out an increasingly hard line on the issue of uranium enrichment.

Trump, who will visit three other Gulf Arab nations next week, has voiced hope for reaching a deal with Tehran to avert an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear program that could ignite a wider war.

Three previous rounds of talks in Oman and Rome ended with notes of optimism, with the two sides saying the atmosphere was friendly despite the countries' four decades of enmity.

But they are not believed to have gone into technical detail, and basic questions remain.

Steve Witkoff, Trump's friend who has served as his globe-trotting negotiator on issues including on Iran, had initially suggested flexibility on Tehran maintaining low-level enrichment of uranium for civilian purposes.

But in an interview published Friday, Witkoff gave his clearest message yet that the Trump administration would oppose any enrichment.

"An enrichment program can never exist in the state of Iran ever again. That's our red line. No enrichment," he told right-wing Breitbart News.

"That means dismantlement, it means no weaponization, and it means that Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan -- those are their three enrichment facilities -- have to be dismantled," he said.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier raised the possibility of Iran importing enriched uranium for any civilian energy.

Trump in his first term withdrew from a nuclear agreement with Tehran negotiated by former president Barack Obama that allowed Iran to enrich uranium at levels well below what is needed for weapons.

Many Iran watchers doubted that Iran would ever voluntarily dismantle its entire nuclear program and give up all enrichment.

But Iran has found itself in a weaker place over the past year. Israel has decimated Hezbollah, the Lebanese group backed by Iran that could launch a counter-attack in any war, and Iran's main ally in the Arab world, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, was toppled in December.

Israel also struck Iranian air defenses as the two countries came openly to blows in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which is also supported by Iran's clerical state.

- 'Blow 'em up nicely' -

Trump himself has acknowledged tensions in his policy on Iran, saying at the start of his second term that hawkish advisors were pushing him to step up pressure reluctantly.

In an interview Thursday, Trump said he wanted "total verification" that Iran's contested nuclear work is shut down but through diplomacy.

"I'd much rather make a deal" than see military action, Trump told the conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

"There are only two alternatives -- blow 'em up nicely or blow 'em up viciously," Trump said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that Oman, which has been mediating, had proposed Sunday as the date and both sides had accepted.

"Negotiations are moving ahead and naturally, the more we advance, the more consultations we have, and the more time the delegations need to examine the issues," he said in a video carried by Iranian media.

"But what's important is that we are moving forward so that we gradually get into the details," Araghchi said.

The Trump administration has kept piling on sanctions despite the talks, angering Iran. On Thursday, the United States imposed sanctions on another refinery in China, the main market for Iranian oil.

Since Trump's withdrawal from the Obama-era deal, the United States has used its power to try to stop all other countries from buying Iranian oil.