In Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful (Mariner, Mar.), the New York Times editor exposes a right-wing push to undo journalists’ protection from libel lawsuits by overturning the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

When did you first think of writing this book?

Some colleagues and I noticed that the frequency with which we were getting threatened with lawsuits at the New York Times really seemed to be spiking. That’s not a huge problem at the Times—we have an amazing team of lawyers, and in some cases those threatening letters are actually helpful because they inadvertently provide details that give us a better picture of the truth. But it got me wondering what that was like if you worked somewhere smaller, or if you were independent. And so I started calling around to various news organizations and press associations all over the country. And what they were seeing was also that there was just a gusher of these types of threats, and the impact was huge. Because of this barrage of threats and litigation, misdeeds have not come to light that otherwise would have.

If reporters know it’s going on, why are you the first to cover this topic?

That really seemed odd to me when I first started writing this. There really has not been that much written in a holistic fashion about how the Sullivan decision has shaped the way that the modern media works, and how it is now under a kind of full-frontal attack. Because this isn’t just about journalists being threatened; it’s about how this is a concerted effort—how the lawyers who are leveling the threats and filing the lawsuits against journalists and news organizations are the same exact ones who are part of this conservative legal movement trying to roll back Sullivan.

How much difference has Trump made?

I think it’s really hard to overstate the impact of having a president who demonizes the media at every turn. That sends a real signal that the media is the enemy. Some of Trump’s nominees, for important cabinet posts like the FBI, have made it very clear that they view certain types of speaking out as really problematic. I’ve been surprised with some of the rhetoric that those cabinet picks have been using; they’ve been explicit about cracking down on dissent and criticism.

Is there something that the Biden administration could have done to protect the Sullivan decision?

The Biden administration could have championed a federal anti-SLAPP [strategic lawsuit against public participation] law like the ones that exist in some states. They make it harder to win a defamation case, and less attractive to even bring one. That would have at least created some fallbacks if Sullivan were to be overturned. But that didn’t happen.