We don’t usually answer President Trump’s tweets, but on Thursday he linked to a Post column along with “The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?”

The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws? https://t.co/QIqLgvYLLi — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 30, 2017

Bad idea, sir — just as it was when you floated it during the campaign.

The New York Times is indeed disgracing itself with nonstop anti-Trump hysteria. The lines between opinion, reporting and advocacy keep getting ever-fuzzier.

But fiddling with libel law — even if Congress and the Constitution allowed it — is not just the wrong answer, but a terrible one.

Everyone has the right to slam any media outlet — the John Crudele column the president cited was a harsh slap at the Times, and we’ve editorialized along similar lines. But that give and take is all part of the debate.

Heck, Trump and his team pull no punches in savaging a host of outlets. Just as Mayor de Blasio regularly trash-talks The Post.

All of which is fair play — the give and take of public debate, with citizens free to judge for themselves who has what right.

Fighting back, as Trump does so relentlessly, is part of the solution. So is waiting for events to show the truth.

Notably, all the breathless, anonymously sourced “news” on the Russian connection is going to look awfully stupid if in the end there’s nothing really there, as the president has repeatedly said is the case. Between the FBI investigation and the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings, the nation will eventually know.

Meddling with libel law in the name of reining in “irresponsible” journalism will do nothing to encourage truth-telling, and far too much to stifle the free press — particularly the small players who can’t afford high legal bills. (Thus, it would increase the power of the “establishment media.”)

One problem is who gets to define “irresponsible.” Today’s libel law gives private citizens extensive safeguards against media abuse, so any tightening must really be about “protecting” public figures — meaning, mainly, the politicians who write the laws.

Yet it was precisely to allow free political speech that the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment.

Stifling criticism, however off-base, doesn’t serve the public. The answer to lies is the truth, and the answer to a media establishment that regularly pushes one partisan agenda is to add new voices.