Federal Judge Dismisses Trump’s $15B Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times

A federal judge in Florida has dismissed President Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, ruling that the complaint was bloated, disorganized, and filled with unnecessary commentary rather than legal arguments. The decision represents a significant setback for Trump’s ongoing legal campaign against media outlets he accuses of damaging his reputation.

Judge’s Ruling

U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday found that Trump’s complaint—spanning 85 pages—failed to meet federal requirements for a “short and plain statement” of the claims. Instead, the filing included lengthy self-praise of Trump’s business career, personal attacks on journalists, and commentary unrelated to the core allegations of defamation.

Calling the document “tedious and burdensome,” Judge Merryday struck it from the record. However, he gave Trump’s legal team 28 days to submit a revised version, capped at 40 pages and written in a concise, professional style. The judge emphasized that federal courts are not a forum for political theater but require clarity and focus to ensure due process.

Trump’s Claims

The lawsuit targets The New York Times, several of its reporters—including Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig, Peter Baker, and Michael Schmidt—and publisher Penguin Random House. Trump alleges that a series of articles and a book about his finances misrepresented his wealth, his business record before The Apprentice, and his public image as a successful entrepreneur. He claims the coverage was politically motivated and designed to harm his chances in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump’s legal team insists that they will revise and refile the lawsuit in compliance with the judge’s order.

Reaction from The New York Times

The New York Times welcomed the dismissal, calling Trump’s lawsuit “meritless” and an attempt to weaponize the courts against journalists. Media law experts echoed that view, noting that defamation claims brought by public figures face extremely high legal standards. Plaintiffs must prove that statements were not only false but published with actual malice—meaning the journalists knew the claims were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Broader Implications

The ruling is part of a larger pattern: Trump has launched multiple lawsuits against media organizations in recent years, many of which have been dismissed early. Legal scholars say these cases highlight the tension between freedom of the press and efforts by public officials to challenge critical reporting.

By demanding a more concise, legally sound filing, Judge Merryday has reinforced that courts will not entertain sprawling documents filled with political rhetoric. The case also underscores the broader difficulty Trump faces in proving defamation under U.S. law, where protections for the press are especially strong.

What’s Next

Trump’s team now has less than a month to file a trimmed-down complaint that adheres to federal court rules. If they fail to meet the new requirements—or if the claims still lack merit—the lawsuit could be dismissed permanently.

For now, the judge’s decision serves as both a procedural rebuke and a reminder that even the most high-profile plaintiffs must follow the rules of civil procedure.