Key Takeaways:

• Nina Jankowicz sued Fox News for defamation and lost.
• She once led Biden’s now-scrapped disinformation board.
• A court recently upheld the dismissal of her lawsuit.
• Jankowicz is now asking the public for donations.
• She expressed outrage over the decision on Substack.

Introduction to the Disinformation Czar Case

“Disinformation czar” was a nickname given to Nina Jankowicz, a Democratic activist and former government official. She was chosen by President Joe Biden to fight misinformation online. But now, she’s back in the spotlight—not for her work, but for losing a public legal battle against Fox News. After the courts sided against her, Jankowicz publicly vented her frustration and asked supporters to help cover her legal bills.

Who Is Nina Jankowicz?

Nina Jankowicz is a political figure with a background in fighting disinformation. In 2022, the Biden administration picked her to lead the Disinformation Governance Board. The board, part of the Department of Homeland Security, aimed to counter false information online.

However, the board sparked major backlash. Many saw it as Orwellian or a threat to free speech. The criticism came fast and hard, especially from conservative media outlets like Fox News. After only a few weeks on the job, the board was put on hold and Jankowicz resigned.

Why Did She Sue Fox News?

After leaving her government role, Jankowicz filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News. She claimed the network spread lies about her and damaged her reputation. According to her, Fox hosts made her seem like a political weapon who wanted to control what Americans could say online.

Her legal team argued that the media attention led to threats and harassment. She hoped the courts would force Fox News to take responsibility. But things didn’t go her way.

The Court’s Decision

In 2023, a lower court dismissed Jankowicz’s defamation lawsuit. The judge decided that Fox’s coverage was protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech and a free press. The court ruled that the network had not crossed the legal line for defamation.

Jankowicz challenged that decision and took her case to a federal appeals court. Unfortunately for her, the appeals Judges agreed with the lower court and upheld the dismissal. With no more legal options before her, she was out of the fight—at least in the courtroom.

How Did Jankowicz React?

Jankowicz did not take the ruling lightly. In a strongly-worded post on her Substack newsletter called “Wiczipedia,” she expressed her rage and disappointment. She wrote that she was “furious” and accused the courts of supporting lies.

She called the outcome “sad” and emotionally charged her readers to understand the supposed injustice. She also suggested her public image had been unfairly destroyed. Her tone was emotional and urgent, unlike typical legal responses.

As a final plea, she asked her followers to donate money. The legal fight, she said, had been expensive and draining. Now, she needed financial support to recover from the battle.

Why Is This Court Loss Significant?

The loss makes things much harder for public figures who hope to sue news outlets. Defamation cases are already hard to win in the US. For public figures like Jankowicz, the bar is even higher. They must prove that the media acted with “actual malice,” meaning they knew the information was false—or seriously ignored the truth.

The court ruled that Fox’s coverage, while possibly intense or unfair, did not reach the level of defamation. Media outlets are allowed to criticize political figures, often with strong language. Even harsh criticisms are protected as free speech.

What Happens Next?

Now that the courts have made their final ruling, Jankowicz’s legal case is over unless she tries appealing to the Supreme Court—which is rare and unlikely. Still, she seems ready to keep fighting in the public eye.

Many believe she might use this defeat to build her personal brand. Her Substack page and public statements show she’s not backing down. And with her call for donations, she may even be getting ready for a comeback—either in politics, advocacy, or media.

What This Means for Free Speech

The case of the disinformation czar brings up questions about how free the press really is—and how far they can go. For critics of Jankowicz’s past role, the court’s decision is a win for free speech. They argue that government officials should face tough questions.

But others believe the media should be held to a higher standard when covering sensitive topics. When coverage leads to threats or harm, where should the line be drawn?

In the changing world of news, politics, and the internet, these questions are more important than ever.

The Disinformation Czar and Her Future

After her defeat in court, the disinformation czar may try to rebrand herself. Her appeal to her followers suggests she still has a loyal base. Her Substack writings could help grow that audience. But the legal loss might also make it harder to be seen as a trustworthy voice on disinformation.

Still, if Jankowicz has anything, it’s persistence. Whether she continues in politics, writing, or activism, one thing is clear: we haven’t seen the last of her yet.

Lessons Learned From the Lawsuit

This high-profile legal case offers several key takeaways. First, it shows just how hard it is for public figures to win defamation lawsuits. Secondly, it proves that even winning in the court of public opinion doesn’t mean winning in a court of law. Finally, it reminds us all how fast the internet can build or break someone’s reputation.

As the battle between media and politics continues, stories like this one—featuring the disinformation czar—will keep raising important questions about truth, fairness, and free speech.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was Nina Jankowicz’s job as disinformation czar?

She led a short-lived government board that aimed to stop lies and false news online.

Why did she sue Fox News?

She said Fox News spread false stories that ruined her reputation and caused harassment.

Why did the court side with Fox News?

The court argued that Fox’s coverage was protected by the First Amendment and did not count as defamation.

Is Nina Jankowicz still in politics?

Not at the moment, but she’s active online and may return to public life later.