Independent journalist Matt Taibbi files $10 million lawsuit against Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove after she labeled him a “serial sexual harasser” during a congressional hearing, setting the stage for a high-profile legal battle over free speech and defamation.
Key Takeaways
- Matt Taibbi has filed a $10 million defamation lawsuit against California Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove for publicly calling him a “serial sexual harasser”
- Kamlager-Dove made the allegations during a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing and repeated them on social media and her official congressional website
- Taibbi maintains that no woman has ever accused him of sexual harassment and the accusations appear aimed at discrediting his reporting on media censorship
- The allegations reportedly stem from a fictional chapter in a book Taibbi co-authored, which all parties acknowledge is not factual
- This case highlights growing tensions between government officials and independent journalists reporting on controversial topics
Accusations Made During Congressional Hearing
During a recent House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing, Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) made serious allegations against independent journalist Matt Taibbi. The congresswoman accused Taibbi of being a “serial sexual harasser” while he was present as a witness. According to court documents, Kamlager-Dove stated that Republicans were “elevating a serial sexual harasser as their star witness” as a distraction tactic. She subsequently repeated these accusations on her social media accounts and official congressional website, giving them wider circulation beyond the hearing itself.
Taibbi, known for his investigative reporting on media censorship and the Twitter Files revelations, was not given an opportunity to respond during the hearing. When Republicans later offered him time to defend himself, he declined to address the allegations in that forum, a decision Kamlager-Dove characterized as “telling” – implying his silence suggested guilt.
There is not much a person can say to a member of Congress hiding behind the speech and debate clause of the Constitution.
I can however respond to a member arrogant enough to repeat defamatory claims on social media.
See below for the $10 million libel lawsuit filed today.… https://t.co/1B58zjPSyb— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) April 3, 2025
Taibbi’s Legal Response
In response to what he considers false and damaging accusations, Taibbi filed a $10 million libel lawsuit against Kamlager-Dove in a New Jersey federal court. The journalist has emphatically denied the accusations, stating that no woman has ever accused him of sexual harassment. Court documents reveal that the congresswoman’s allegations appear to be based on a fictional chapter in a book Taibbi co-wrote years ago, which all parties involved acknowledge is not factual or autobiographical in nature.
The lawsuit represents a significant escalation in what Taibbi supporters view as attempts to discredit his reporting. This is not the first time Taibbi has faced scrutiny after his work on the Twitter Files – he soon after was subjected to an IRS audit following his congressional testimony on social media censorship issues. The timing of these events has raised concerns among free speech advocates about potential retaliation against journalists who challenge government narratives.
Congresswoman’s History of Controversial Statements
This is not Representative Kamlager-Dove’s first controversial public statement. The California congresswoman has previously made headlines for walking out of President Trump’s State of the Union address and for authoring legislation aimed at financial institutions that do business with gun manufacturers. In 2019, she promoted a resolution discouraging banks from lending to firearms businesses, arguing: “You cannot have a gun if the gun has not been made… you cannot sell a gun that has not been made.”
Kamlager-Dove’s comments during the hearing where she made the accusations against Taibbi were focused on what she described as Republican hypocrisy regarding free speech issues. The confrontational nature of the exchange has raised questions about the appropriate boundaries of congressional immunity and whether statements made during official proceedings that may damage an individual’s reputation should be protected from legal consequences.
Implications For Press Freedom
The case highlights growing tensions between government officials and journalists, particularly those reporting on issues related to censorship and government overreach. As the lawsuit proceeds, it may set important precedents regarding the limits of congressional speech immunity and the responsibilities of elected officials when making potentially defamatory statements about private citizens. For conservatives who have long expressed concerns about attempts to silence dissenting voices, this case represents a significant test of whether journalists can successfully defend their reputations against what they perceive as politically motivated attacks.
