Tag: The New York Times

President Trump sues The New York Times for $15 billion
U.S. President Donald Trump, accompanied by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 15, 2025. © REUTERS/Jonathan
In a bold move that’s got the liberal media establishment shaking in their boots, President Donald Trump unleashed a staggering $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and publisher Penguin Random House on September 15, 2025, calling out years of what he describes as vicious, fabricated attacks designed to derail his America First agenda and sabotage the 2024 election.
This isn’t just another legal skirmish—it’s a full-frontal assault on the fake news machine that’s spent decades smearing Trump, his family, his businesses, and the patriotic movements like MAGA that have reshaped American politics. And despite a Florida judge’s temporary dismissal on technical grounds last Friday, Trump is already declaring victory, vowing to refile and hold these biased outlets accountable once and for all.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa, Florida, zeroes in on three hit-piece articles from the Times—including a pre-election editorial branding Trump “unfit for office”—and the 2024 smear-job book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, cooked up by Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig and peddled by Penguin. Trump’s lawyers argue these publications are riddled with “repugnant distortions and fabrications,” maliciously aimed at tanking his reputation and inflicting billions in damage to his brand and future earnings.
In a fiery Truth Social post, Trump blasted the Times as “one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country,” accusing it of becoming a “virtual mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democrat Party” and labeling their Kamala Harris endorsement as “the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER.”
Make no mistake: This lawsuit exposes the deep-seated hatred the elite media harbors for Trump and everything he stands for. The complaint lays out how the Times operated with “actual malice,” knowingly pushing lies because their reporters couldn’t stand the sight of a successful businessman-turned-president who puts America first. It’s no secret the Times has been gunning for Trump since day one, and this book—masquerading as journalism—is just the latest in a long line of partisan hacks.As detailed in the filing, Lucky Loser peddles tired tropes about Trump’s inheritance and success, ignoring his undeniable track record of building empires and winning elections against all odds.
People walk by The New York Times building in Manhattan, New York City, U.S., September 16, 2025. U.S. President Donald Trump has filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times and book publisher Penguin Random House. © REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
But the deep state sympathizers in the judiciary tried to throw a wrench in the works. On September 19, Judge Steven Merryday—a Bush-era appointee—tossed the 85-page complaint, calling it “decidedly improper and impermissible” for including too much “vituperation and invective” and self-praise for Trump’s accomplishments. Merryday griped that lawsuits aren’t “a megaphone for public relations” or a “podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” but let’s be real: Trump’s filing was a necessary takedown of the media’s lies, and the judge’s nitpicking on length smells like another attempt to protect the establishment press. Still, in a huge win for Trump, Merryday greenlit a refiling within 28 days, limited to 40 pages—plenty of room to sharpen the knife and go after these defamers again.
Trump, ever the fighter, brushed off the dismissal like the minor speed bump it is. During an Oval Office event, when ABC’s Jonathan Karl tried to gloat over the ruling, Trump shot back: “I’m winning, I’m winning the cases.” He then turned the tables, slamming ABC as a “terrible network” and Karl as “guilty” of unfair reporting. And he’s right—Trump’s racking up victories left and right. Just look at his July $10 billion suit against The Wall Street Journal over bogus Epstein smears, or the fat settlements he extracted from CBS ($16 million for deceptively editing a Kamala Harris interview) and ABC ($15 million over George Stephanopoulos’ false rape claims tied to E. Jean Carroll). These aren’t flukes; they’re proof that when Trump fights back, the fake news folds.
The Times, predictably, whined that the suit is “an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting,” while Penguin called it “meritless.” But “independent“? Give us a break. This is the same rag that’s been a Democrat cheerleader for years, pushing hoaxes from Russia collusion to COVID fearmongering. A Pew survey earlier this year showed Republicans overwhelmingly agree the media’s been too critical of Trump, while Dems think he’s too hard on them—classic liberal bias.
As of September 24, 2025, Trump’s team is gearing up to refile, with a spokesman affirming: “President Trump will continue to hold the Fake News accountable through this powerhouse lawsuit.” On X, supporters are rallying, with posts slamming the Times as a “mouthpiece” and cheering Trump’s stand against media tyranny. This fight isn’t just about one man—it’s about restoring truth in journalism and protecting conservative voices from the left’s smear machine. Trump’s not backing down, and neither should we. MAGA forever.
September 17, 2025
Trump may live to regret suing Murdoch for libel regarding Epstein’s birthday card
Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and Rupert Murdoch in New York County Supreme edit. © Alan Woodward/The NewYorkBudgets
Donald Trump has never shied away from a fight. In fact, it’s practically his brand. But in launching a $10 billion libel lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, and two Wall Street Journal reporters over a birthday card allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump may have walked into a legal minefield of his own making.
The lawsuit centers around a Journal story detailing a bizarre 2003 birthday card supposedly authored by Trump to Epstein. According to the article, the note contained several typed lines framed by the outline of a naked woman, hand-drawn in thick marker. The letter reportedly included a third-person conversation between “Trump” and Epstein, with enigmatic phrases such as “enigmas never age” and the cryptic sign-off: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump has vehemently denied authorship of the card. In a furious social media post, he declared: “These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures.” He further asserted the note was a forgery fabricated by “unnamed Democrats,” and called the Journal a “useless rag,” promising “a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved.”
For Murdoch, 93, and Trump, 78, this isn’t their first confrontation. The media mogul’s outlets — most prominently Fox News and the Journal — were skeptical of Trump during the 2016 primaries before eventually aiding his path to the presidency. Their relationship has since oscillated between strategic alliance and mutual contempt. But this lawsuit could mark a definitive rupture.
The legal hurdles Trump faces are towering. The landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) still stands — despite Justice Clarence Thomas’s wish to revisit it. Under Sullivan, public figures suing for libel must prove “actual malice” — that the publisher knowingly printed falsehoods or acted in reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a near-impossible standard to meet when the defendant is The Wall Street Journal, not a tabloid like the National Enquirer.
Moreover, reports suggest the card came from Department of Justice archives. If so, the Journal’s sourcing may have been both legitimate and well-documented. Dow Jones has vowed to “vigorously defend” its reporting, stating, “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our journalism.”
If Trump hoped to intimidate Murdoch into silence or submission, he may have miscalculated. Libel suits, historically, are double-edged swords — especially for the plaintiff. They often invite forensic dissection of the very allegations the plaintiff seeks to bury. Legal legend Roy Cohn, Trump’s onetime mentor, famously advised clients: “Never sue for libel.” The reasons are obvious. Oscar Wilde, Alger Hiss, Gen. William Westmoreland, and Ariel Sharon all sued — and saw their reputations battered further. Some even ended up in prison.
Trump’s reputation is already uniquely impervious to additional tarnish. A New York jury found him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll. He’s been convicted of 34 felony counts related to hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. His boasts about women and his own sexuality — including in the notorious Access Hollywood tape — are publicly etched in American memory.
So what’s the damage here, really?
Legal analysts suspect Trump’s motivations may have more to do with uncovering sources through discovery than restoring his name. His lawyers have already requested that Murdoch be deposed quickly, citing his advanced age and reported health concerns. “I hope Rupert and his ‘friends’ are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies,” Trump posted. That may sound like bravado, but it betrays an ulterior aim: flushing out who leaked the card and what else they may know.
But discovery cuts both ways. Murdoch’s attorneys will be free to interrogate the origins and nature of Trump’s long, checkered relationship with Epstein — one that spanned at least 15 years. How close were they? Did Trump know about Epstein’s illegal activities? Did he ever participate, enable, or turn a blind eye? Why did their relationship allegedly sour in 2004 over a Palm Beach mansion? Was that really the end?
Those depositions may expose far more than Trump bargained for — not just about his ties to Epstein, but about his broader conduct and associations.
Trump has filed and settled media lawsuits before. He reportedly reached a $15 million agreement with ABC after George Stephanopoulos mistakenly said he had been “convicted of rape.” A recent $16 million CBS settlement over a 60 Minutes segment seemed more about easing Paramount’s merger path than Trump’s legal merit. But those cases were relatively tame compared to what this Journal suit could unleash.
Murdoch’s legal team is not likely to blink. While The Wall Street Journal ran a curious follow-up story on Epstein’s “Birthday Book” that included letters from Bill Clinton and billionaire Leon Black, it offered little new insight — possibly a strategic nod or an effort to show editorial balance. But sources close to the matter insist Murdoch has no intention of settling.
Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein with President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993. © THE WILLIAM J. CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY/MEGA
And perhaps he shouldn’t. Trump is often at his most reckless when wounded. Peggy Noonan aptly observed that “he fights even when he will hurt himself, because the fight is all.” But in this case, the fight may well invite ruin. Trump could inadvertently open the floodgates to evidence, testimony, and revelations far more damaging than a birthday card.
He may soon learn what every good trial lawyer knows: In libel litigation, the courtroom is often the last place you want your secrets to surface.
July 29, 2025
A new trial begins for Sarah Palin’s defamation case against The New York Times.
A retrial is set to begin Monday for Sarah Palin’s libel lawsuit claiming The New York Times libeled her in an editorial eight years ago.
The onetime Republican vice presidential candidate and ex-governor of Alaska gets another chance to prove to a federal jury that the newspaper defamed her with the 2017 editorial falsely linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting. Palin said it damaged her reputation and career.
The Times has acknowledged the editorial was inaccurate but said it quickly corrected an “honest mistake.”
The trial, expected to last a week, comes after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restored the case last year. Jury selection is scheduled to begin Monday morning.
In February 2022, Judge Jed S. Rakoff in Manhattan rejected Palin’s claims in a ruling issued while a jury deliberated. The judge then let jurors deliver their verdict, which went against Palin.
In restoring the lawsuit, the 2nd Circuit said Rakoff’s dismissal ruling improperly intruded on the jury’s work. It also cited flaws in the trial, saying there was erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction and an erroneous response to a question from the jury.
The retrial occurs as President Donald Trump and others in agreement with his views of news coverage have been aggressive toward media outlets when they believe there has been unjust treatment.
Trump sued CBS News for $20 billion over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and also sued the Des Moines Register over an Iowa election poll that turned out to be inaccurate. ABC News settled a lawsuit with Trump over its incorrect claim the president had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll.
Kenneth G. Turkel, a lawyer for Palin, did not return a request for comment.
Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the Times, said Palin’s claim stemmed from “a passing reference to an event in an editorial that was not about Sarah Palin.”
“That reference was an unintended error, and quickly corrected. We’re confident we will prevail and intend to vigorously defend the case,” Stadtlander said in a statement.
April 14, 2025