The following is a guest contribution and reflects the authors’ views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
Last month’s issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly (PAW) fawns over Michael Park ’98, a right-wing lawyer and, since 2018, a U.S. circuit judge. Park’s portrait commands the cover, while the accompanying long-form profile, titled “The Contender,” speculates that he could become Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court.
The author is P.G. Sittenfeld ’07. The piece’s tagline describes Sittenfeld as “a freelance writer based in Cincinnati” who has published in Esquire, Outside, Slate, and The Washington Post. So far, so unobjectionable.
But Sittenfeld is not just any old journalist. Last May, President Donald Trump pardoned Sittenfeld, a one-time rising star in Cincinnati politics, following his conviction on federal bribery and extortion charges in 2022. Sittenfeld, a Democrat, owes his freedom to Trump — the man who nominated his subject Park to his judgeship, and the man with the power to elevate Park further to the nation’s highest court. Nowhere does PAW disclose this striking conflict of interest.
To be clear, we believe in second chances. We do not necessarily object to Sittenfeld freelancing for PAW, which has written sympathetically about his story in the past. And we recognize that the case against Sittenfeld has drawn legitimate scrutiny. Indeed, the appellate judges who upheld Sittenfeld’s conviction urged the Supreme Court to review the relevant law.
Sittenfeld has sought such review, lodging an appeal, Sittenfeld v. United States, before the Court, arguing that his prosecution was unlawful. The case is a rare instance of the recipient of a presidential pardon having his cake (accepting the pardon) and trying to eat it too (by continuing to use appeals to have the conviction vacated).
Last month, Sittenfeld’s lawyers indicated that he would drop his appeal if the Supreme Court ordered a lower court to vacate his conviction. Trump’s Department of Justice has followed suit with a brief requesting that the Supreme Court clear Sittenfeld and dismiss his appeal.
The Supreme Court is therefore poised to consider whether to wipe clean the stain of Sittenfeld’s conviction. For Sittenfeld, the potential to have his conviction vacated is clearly important — it would help restore his reputation and might lead to revitalization of his political career, even though he has disavowed the possibility.
Whatever the merits of the case, having Sittenfeld write an article about that very institution is a clear conflict of interest. Though the University has funded PAW since 2021, the magazine retains its editorial independence and journalistic mission. PAW shouldn’t have had Sittenfeld write the piece, or at least should have let readers know about this conflict.
Other problems surface in the profile as well. The most obvious: Sittenfeld is overly deferential to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ’72, for whom Park clerked twice, both on the appellate and Supreme courts. Alito has not publicly recused himself from Sittenfeld’s appeal.
Sittenfeld quotes both Park and Alito praising one another. Alito describes Park as “exceptional, very smart, hardworking, dedicated, and a delight to work with,” “a gem,” and “a superb choice” for the Supreme Court. Sittenfeld would have us marvel at Alito’s endorsement: “Even Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ’72 says Park, who clerked for him twice, has the right stuff.” But what would any judge say on the record about a protégé? The profile notes that Alito provided PAW with quotes via email, which means we cannot know whether Sittenfeld contacted Alito directly, much less whether Alito knew that Sittenfeld is a petitioner whose case he will review.
Sittenfeld, however, doesn’t grant Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) the courtesy he extended to Alito. When President Trump nominated Park to the Second Circuit in 2018, Schumer declined to back Park but agreed to meet with him. Sittenfeld quotes Park’s reaction to Schumer.
Park told Sittenfeld he hoped he “could persuade” the senator “that I’m conservative, but fair.” Sittenfeld then quotes Park making clear that Schumer never gave him the chance: “Instead, the then-Senate minority leader ‘arrived late, left early, was grumpy the whole time, and spent most of it railing on the Federalist Society,’ says Park.”
Sittenfeld’s presentation of that anecdote is unfair for several reasons. First, he doesn’t indicate that he ever gave Schumer’s office an opportunity to respond, a necessary part of reputable reporting. Second, Sittenfeld doesn’t mention that the Federalist Society has championed his appeal. Third, Sittenfeld doesn’t disclose the reasons why he, not just Park, might not be a fan of Schumer’s. Schumer likely supported Sittenfeld’s opponent in the Democratic primary for an Ohio Senate seat in 2016. Schumer has also been an outspoken critic of Trump’s sweeping pardons of white-collar criminals.
Aside from the abundant conflicts arising from these connections, Sittenfeld’s profile of Park doesn’t meet basic standards of good reporting. Sittenfeld doesn’t quote anyone saying anything remotely negative about Park. Moreover, the PAW article makes it seem as though Park is just another conservative judge, without mentioning the ongoing struggle between principled conservative jurists, such as former Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, and those more willing to bow to Trump’s demands. At least some of that disagreement — and where Park stands on the divide — should have been included in the article.
Although Sittenfeld has cast his appeal as a righteous struggle to defend the First Amendment, it has become useful cover for the Trump White House. Sittenfeld has an established record of opposing Trump, whom he once called a “buffoonish carnival barker.” JD Vance has cited Sittenfeld’s progressive past to deny that Trump is rigging the judicial system for his allies.
In addition, more is at stake in Sittenfeld v. United States than Sittenfeld’s criminal record or personal reputation. Toughening the requirements to prove bribery aligns with recent right-wing efforts to absolve public officials from accountability. Should the Supreme Court accept Sittenfeld’s appeal, experts predict that a cascade of past corruption convictions would unravel. Money would flow even more freely between donors and candidates. Some argue that right-wing groups are seizing on Sittenfeld’s appeal to cement oligarchic control over electoral politics.
By publishing Sittenfeld’s profile of Park without noting his interests before the Supreme Court, PAW neglected its journalistic duty to alert its readers when a writer cannot fairly cover a story. Given all that hangs in the balance, transparency about Sittenfeld’s conflicts is not optional but foundational to good journalism.
Jonathan Ort ’21 is a Ph.D. student at the University of Chicago and a former editor-in-chief of the ‘Prince.’ He can be contacted at jaort[at]alumni.princeton.edu.
Laurel Leff ’78 is a professor of journalism, emerita, at Northeastern University and a former reporter and editor. She can be contacted at l.leff[at]northeastern.edu.
Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
Read More
Don’t trust your campus paper? Here’s the case.
Miriam WaldvogelIn a moment of crisis, a trusted student newspaper transforms from an everyday service to a lifeline. Even when national outlets swoop in to cover a tragedy or an encampment, student reporters can provide deep sourcing and unique insight into the happenings on the ground.
In a moment of crisis, a trusted student newspaper transforms from an everyday service to a lifeline. Even when national outlets swoop in to cover a tragedy or an encampment, student reporters can provide deep sourcing and unique insight into the happenings on the ground.
Nominate your lecturers for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching
Jerry ZhuNominations for the award are due to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty (padt[at]princeton.edu) by Feb. 6, 2026. I will be sending in my nominations for my favorite lecturers and other faculty, and I hope you will too.
Nominations for the award are due to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty (padt[at]princeton.edu) by Feb. 6, 2026. I will be sending in my nominations for my favorite lecturers and other faculty, and I hope you will too.
I don’t want to get run over by an e-bike
Charlie YaleAt its next meeting, Princeton’s Environmental Safety and Risk Management (ESRM) committee will consider a change to the University’s current e-bike policy. Due to the risk they pose to pedestrians and riders on campus, the ESRM committee must ban e-bikes once and for all when we get back from winter break.
At its next meeting, Princeton’s Environmental Safety and Risk Management (ESRM) committee will consider a change to the University’s current e-bike policy. Due to the risk they pose to pedestrians and riders on campus, the ESRM committee must ban e-bikes once and for all when we get back from winter break.