Table of Contents
- Trump vs. The New York Times: A Quick Recap
- What Changed in the New Filing?
- The Articles at the Center of the Case
- Legal Experts Weigh In
- A Broader Pattern of Media Lawsuits
- Sources
Trump vs. The New York Times: A Quick Recap
President Donald Trump has refiled his explosive $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, its reporters, and publisher Penguin Random House—just weeks after a federal judge tossed out his original complaint for being overly verbose and legally unfocused.
The new 40-page filing, submitted Thursday evening in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, marks Trump’s latest legal salvo against a news organization he has long branded as “fake news.” At its core, the lawsuit claims that two Times articles published during the 2024 election cycle deliberately damaged Trump’s reputation as a businessman and public figure.
What Changed in the New Filing?
After Judge Steven D. Merryday—a George H.W. Bush appointee—dismissed the original 85-page complaint as “florid and enervating,” Trump’s legal team trimmed the fat:
- Length reduced by more than half (85 → 40 pages)
- Removed self-congratulatory passages (e.g., calling his 2024 win “the greatest personal and political achievement in American history”)
- Dropped Times reporter Michael S. Schmidt as a named defendant
- Sharpened focus on specific allegations of defamation
Despite the edits, the core demand remains unchanged: $15 billion in damages—a figure legal analysts call “extraordinarily inflated” for a defamation claim.
The Articles at the Center of the Case
Trump’s lawsuit targets two investigative pieces:
- “Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Lies and Losses” by Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner – which examined Trump’s financial history and alleged pattern of tax avoidance and business exaggerations.
- “The Apprentice Presidency Revisited” by Peter Baker – which analyzed how Trump’s reality TV persona shaped his governance and public credibility.
The complaint also names Penguin Random House, which published Craig and Buettner’s book “The Trump Takedown,” claiming it republished defamatory material from the original reporting.
Legal Experts Weigh In
First Amendment attorneys remain skeptical of the lawsuit’s viability. “Public figures like Trump must prove ‘actual malice’—that the publisher knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard,” said First Amendment scholar Jane Kirtley. “Courts have consistently ruled that tough but fact-based reporting doesn’t meet that bar.”
Notably, this isn’t Trump’s first attempt to sue The Times. A 2021 lawsuit over similar financial reporting was dismissed, and Trump was ordered to pay the newspaper’s legal fees. A 2020 campaign lawsuit over an Opinion essay also failed.
A Broader Pattern of Media Lawsuits
Trump’s legal strategy appears to be part of a wider campaign against major media outlets:
| Outlet | Outcome |
|---|---|
| CBS News | Settled for $16 million |
| ABC News | Settled for $16 million |
| Jimmy Kimmel Live! (ABC) | Temporarily pulled off air after FCC pressure |
| The New York Times | Lawsuit refiled; previously dismissed twice |
While settlements may offer short-term wins, critics argue these lawsuits are less about legal merit and more about intimidation. “This is a classic SLAPP tactic—Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” said media lawyer Floyd Abrams. “The goal is to burden journalists with legal costs and chill future reporting.”
In response, The New York Times stood firm: “This lawsuit has no merit… The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics.”
