When a sitting or former president elects to seek $15 billion in damages from a single news organisation, the action reads less like a conventional libel suit than like a strategic campaign play writ in legal form. On Sept. 15–16, 2025, Donald Trump announced and filed such a complaint against The New York Times, several Times journalists and associated publishers, saying the outlet had run a “decades-long campaign of lies” and calling it “one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the history of our country.”
He added that the paper had become a “virtual mouthpiece for the radical Left Democrat Party.” There are three discrete frames in which to judge this case: constitutional law, newsroom practice and political theatre. Each offers a different prediction about whether the suit is likely to prevail, and each suggests distinct consequences for the institutions at stake.
On paper, American defamation Law establishes a steep hill for public figures. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), plaintiffs who are public officials or public figures must prove “actual malice” — that the defendant published a falsehood knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. That standard protects all but the most egregious reporting failures and demands evidence about a reporter’s state of mind at publication, not merely proof of factual error. Courts have repeatedly emphasised the difficulty of meeting that bar.
That legal wall is why suits by powerful plaintiffs often operate as instruments of leverage rather than purely as mechanisms to vindicate reputations. Consider the recent settlements Trump highlights: ABC agreed to make a $15 million contribution to a planned Trump library to resolve a dispute tied to inaccurate on-air comments, and Paramount/ CBS reached a $16 million settlement in another high-profile dispute.
Those outcomes do not equate to judicial findings of malice; they reflect the complex calculus that companies make when weighing the costs of protracted discovery, reputational risk, and the distraction of litigation. In the commercial realpolitik of media companies, settlement can be damage control rather than an admission of journalistic failure.
From a newsroom vantage, the stakes are stark. Big-budget investigative journalism depends on an institutional ability to accept legal risk, to check sources, document reporting decisions, and defend editorial judgement in court if necessary. The threat of repeated, high-value suits imposes a chilling tax: even if most claims fail, the process of discovery, private depositions, the cost of legal defence, the drain on editors’ time, can incentivise self-censorship or encourage settlements that leave public records unexplored.
As one experienced newsroom lawyer put it in recent commentary about litigation pressure, the pattern of “rhetoric and actions” from political leaders can be mirrored across the information ecosystem, prompting smaller outlets to mimic defensive strategies long before a case reaches a judge.
NYT Building
Yet it would be a mistake to view this litigation as an empty bluff. Courts are not wholly captive to First Amendment concerns; they adjudicate harms and damages on the basis of evidence. The complaint against the Times, as reported, identifies specific articles and a book project and alleges that their claims were published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.
If Trump’s legal team can produce contemporaneous internal communications, contradictory witness testimony, or other documentary proof that reporters knew key claims were false, the suit could survive early motions. But that is a high evidentiary bar, and historically judges have dismissed similar high-stakes suits at early procedural stages when plaintiffs fail to plead facts that plausibly demonstrate actual malice.
The litigation is also a political communication. Publicising a multi-billion dollar suit amplifies a message: that major institutions are corrupt, that the plaintiff is under siege, and that legal action is evidence of fighting back. This is a form of signalling to a base that prizes grievance and retribution. As one commentator put it in an earlier Trump-era legal contest, some suits are “cartoonishly vexatious,” — not because they cannot be argued, but because their primary utility is to shift the news cycle and impose costs on opponents.
The lesson is twofold: litigation can be weaponised by the powerful, and legal doctrine (even a robust Sullivan standard) does not eliminate the practical asymmetry that comes with litigation’s cost and duration. Two other practical anchors should guide readers watching this case. First, the forum selection, filing in Florida, and it matters. Plaintiffs sometimes choose jurisdictions they perceive as more favorable or predictable; venue can affect pretrial orders and scheduling. Second, discovery will be decisive.
If the Times shows meticulous sourcing, contemporaneous notes, and editorial review that produced its stories, it strengthens its defence. Conversely, if the plaintiff can point to internal inconsistencies at the Times or to documentary proof of knowing falsehoods, the case could survive motions to dismiss.
ALSO READ: Trump Slaps $15 Billion Suit on NYT, Calls Daily ‘Degenerative’
However, there are immediate consequences. If courts reject overreaching suits and insist on the actual-malice standard, that outcome will protect the breathing room journalists need to pursue investigations. Instead, if high-value suits proceed on amorphous proofs and culminate in settlements, the result will be a more cautionary press, especially among mid-sized outlets without the Times’ legal resources.
Finally, Mr. Trump’s Truth Social post supplies the rhetorical raw material for the complaint. “The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long,” he wrote in his social media platform but rhetoric does not equal evidence. The coming months of motions, discovery and possible appeals will test whether the complaint is primarily performative or backed by the documentary and testimonial proof that the American law requires.
For now, newsrooms should do what they have always done when under legal pressure: document rigorously, be transparent about sourcing where possible, and explain to readers how and why reporting decisions were made. Courts will determine whether a legal line has been crossed or not. Editors must defend the sturdier, day-to-day work of truth-seeking journey that makes their determination possible.
