Catch and Kill Meaning: Origin, Trump Case, and Legality

The meaning of “catch and kill” is straightforward: it’s a media suppression tactic in which a publication buys the exclusive rights to a damaging story about a public figure not to publish it, but to bury it. The “catch” is acquiring the story; the “kill” is making sure it never runs. Because the source has sold exclusive rights, no competing outlet can legally publish the information either, so the story effectively disappears. Long an open secret in tabloid journalism, the practice moved into mainstream legal vocabulary when prosecutors used it to frame the 2024 criminal case against Donald Trump.

How the Tactic Works

The mechanics are simple. A publication pays a source for exclusive rights to a story, the source signs a contract that usually includes a nondisclosure agreement with steep financial penalties for breach, and the story is shelved. The contracts can be aggressive. One agreement between American Media Inc. (AMI) and a former Trump Tower doorman carried a $1 million penalty clause if the source disclosed the information without permission.¹

The transaction is not always cash for silence. A publication might also use corporate leverage, buying out a competitor or threatening litigation to block damaging coverage.² In many tabloid cases the deal is a trade of favors: kill this story, get an exclusive cover or a steady stream of celebrity tips in return. David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, testified at Trump’s trial that this calculus of “favors doled out and chits called in” was simply how the tabloid business operated.³

Where the Phrase Comes From

The term was coined by “old-time tabloid editors,” according to the New York Times, and has been a fixture of supermarket tabloid culture for decades.³ Gene Pope Jr., who owned the National Enquirer until his death in 1988, used it regularly with comedian Bob Hope, trading silence about alleged infidelities for legitimate interview profiles.⁴

Under Pecker’s leadership at AMI, the tactic became more systematic. ABC News described Pecker as a “master of the technique,” with editors authorized to approve payments up to $10,000 for stories and anything larger requiring his personal sign-off.⁵ Documented pre-Trump examples include:

In 2003, two days after Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his California gubernatorial run, AMI paid former child actress Gigi Goyette $20,000 for a confidentiality agreement about an alleged affair. Pecker later testified he had an arrangement to acquire and suppress negative stories about Schwarzenegger during that campaign.⁶
In 2005, the Enquirer buried sexual assault allegations from model Beth Ferrier in exchange for an exclusive interview with Bill Cosby. AMI had promised Ferrier $7,500 for her account but she reported never being paid.⁴
In 2007, AMI suppressed photos and a story about Tiger Woods’ alleged extramarital affair in exchange for an exclusive cover appearance on Men’s Fitness. The issue reportedly sold 30 percent above the magazine’s annual average.⁴
AMI maintained a practice of suppressing stories about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment and assault of women. In exchange, Weinstein fed the tabloid negative information about other people.⁴

How It Became a Criminal Case

Catch and kill drew its widest public attention through the Trump prosecution, where the tactic sat at the center of the story but was not itself the crime charged. The charges were for falsifying business records to hide the payments.

The Trump Tower Agreement

In August 2015, shortly after Trump announced his candidacy, Pecker met with Trump and attorney Michael Cohen at Trump Tower. According to Pecker’s trial testimony, he told them, “I would be your eyes and ears,” and promised to alert Cohen if women approached the Enquirer with negative stories about Trump so the stories could be “killed in another magazine … or somebody would have to purchase them.”⁷ The arrangement also involved planting negative stories about Trump’s political rivals.

The Doorman

The first payment under the scheme went to Dino Sajudin, a former Trump World Tower doorman who claimed Trump had fathered a child with a former employee. In late 2015, AMI paid Sajudin $30,000 for exclusive rights to the rumor. The contract was amended shortly after to include a $1 million penalty clause and extend exclusivity “in perpetuity.”⁸ Pecker later testified the rumor was untrue, but when he moved to cancel the deal, Cohen instructed him to wait until after the 2016 election, and Pecker complied.⁹

Karen McDougal

In June 2016, AMI paid former Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for the “lifetime rights” to her account of an alleged ten-month affair with Trump. The contract included provisions for bylined columns and magazine covers, terms Pecker later testified were added to “conceal its true nature” and make the deal look like a legitimate media arrangement rather than hush money.¹⁰ Cohen had reportedly promised Trump would reimburse AMI, but Pecker was never repaid. McDougal later sued to void the contract and reached a settlement in April 2018 that restored the rights to her life story.¹¹

Stormy Daniels and the False Records

When adult film actress Stormy Daniels sought to go public with allegations of a sexual encounter with Trump in October 2016, Pecker declined to make the payment. Cohen stepped in, wiring $130,000 to Daniels’ attorney through a shell company called Essential Consultants LLC. After the election, Trump reimbursed Cohen $420,000, enough to cover the original payment along with other expenses, a bonus, and the tax implications. The Trump Organization processed those reimbursements as eleven checks, recording each one as payment for legal services under a retainer agreement that did not exist.¹²

Those 34 false entries were what a New York County jury convicted Trump on in May 2024, finding him guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a class E felony in New York.¹² Justice Juan Merchan sentenced Trump on January 10, 2025 to an “unconditional discharge,” meaning the conviction stands on his record but carries no prison time, probation, or other penalties.¹³

Is Catch and Kill Legal?

On its own, catch and kill is legal in the United States. The First Amendment protects the editorial discretion of news outlets to decide what they publish, and choosing not to run a story falls within that protection.² The Supreme Court’s ruling in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), which struck down a law compelling newspapers to publish certain content, supports the idea that the government cannot force a publication to print a story it has chosen to suppress.¹

The practice becomes legally dangerous when it intersects with other laws. In the Trump case, the payments were not the criminal charges; the charges were for the falsified records that concealed them. The Federal Election Commission separately determined that AMI’s $150,000 payment to McDougal was an “illegal and undisclosed corporate contribution to influence the 2016 election,” and AMI agreed to pay $187,500 to resolve that finding.¹⁴ AMI had argued that “payments for silence are not contributions or expenditures because silence is not a ‘thing of value,'” but the settlement effectively rejected that defense. AMI’s earlier non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors admitted it had made the McDougal payment “in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign” to prevent the story from influencing the election.¹⁵

On the ethical side, the Society of Professional Journalists issued a statement declaring that the Enquirer’s buy-and-suppress practices violated its code of ethics, which calls for the “free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough.”² Those standards are voluntary and carry no legal force. Catch and kill occupies an uneasy space: ethically condemned, constitutionally protected, and legally dangerous only when it tangles with campaign finance rules or other statutes.

How the Phrase Entered General Use

The term moved into mainstream vocabulary largely through journalist Ronan Farrow, who used it as the title of his 2019 book, Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators. The book detailed what Farrow called a “shadowy network” of shared lawyers, private investigators, and public relations specialists used by powerful men to suppress allegations of sexual misconduct.¹⁶ Farrow alleged that NBC executives blocked his investigation into Harvey Weinstein, a story he ultimately published in The New Yorker and that won a Pulitzer Prize. NBC has consistently denied yielding to outside pressure, saying Farrow’s reporting was not yet ready for broadcast at the time he left the network.¹⁷

1
First Amendment Encyclopedia. Catch and Kill, Trump’s Trial, Journalism Ethics and the First Amendment
2
Freedom Forum. Catch and Kill Journalism
3
The New York Times. Trump Catch and Kill
4
New York Post. History of the Enquirer’s Catch and Kill
5
ABC News. The Hidden World of Catch and Kill in Tabloids
6
The Independent. Trump Trial: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods
7
Politico. Genesis of Catch and Kill
8
CNN. Trump Tower Doorman Contract With AMI
9
ABC News. Inside the 3 Catch and Kill Payments in Trump’s Indictment
10
ABC News. Karen McDougal Connected to Donald Trump’s Hush Money Case
11
CNBC. Ex-Playboy Model Freed From Deal Barring Talk of Alleged Trump Affair
12
Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. D.A. Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Trial Conviction of Donald J. Trump
13
PBS NewsHour. Trump Was Sentenced to an Unconditional Discharge in His Hush Money Conviction
14
The New York Times. Trump, Karen McDougal, Playboy, American Media
15
ABC News. Tabloid Publisher Involved in Trump Hush Money Payment Reaches Deal
16
Time. Ronan Farrow Catch and Kill
17
NPR. New York Times Argues Ronan Farrow Stretches the Facts