Trump v. New York Times
Trump filed the suit, claiming the Times falsely described his tax practices, cast him as a scandal figure, and reported a former chief of staff's warning that he would govern like a dictator, and seeking about $15 billion in damages.
Judge Merryday struck the original 85-page complaint under Rule 8 as improperly long and argumentative, ordering Trump to refile a shorter, compliant pleading. The ruling was not a decision on the merits.
The court heard argument on the Times' motion to dismiss the refiled complaint.
Judge Merryday deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss and granted Trump leave to amend again, so the case remains at the pleading stage with no merits ruling.
Legal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 3 videos
TikTok Overview
Overview
Donald Trump filed a $15 billion defamation suit against the New York Times in September 2025 in the Middle District of Florida, claiming the paper falsely described his tax practices, called him a scandal figure, and reported a former chief of staff's warning that he would govern like a dictator. The judge struck the original 85-page complaint under Rule 8. Not a win for the Times on the merits, just a ruling that the pleading was too sprawling to stand and had to be refiled under 40 pages. The case hasn't reached the substance yet. The legal question underneath all of it is whether New York Times v. Sullivan's actual malice standard, the doctrine that has protected press coverage of public figures since 1964, survives a sustained effort by the most powerful plaintiff in the country to dismantle it through litigation.
The Facts
In September 2025, Trump sued The New York Times in the Middle District of Florida, seeking roughly $15 billion and alleging the paper falsely portrayed his tax practices and record. Judge Steven D. Merryday struck the original 85-page complaint under Rule 8 as improperly long and argumentative and ordered a shorter refiling. Trump refiled, the Times moved to dismiss, and after a July 22, 2026 hearing the court deferred ruling and granted leave to amend.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the New York Times published false statements about Donald Trump's tax practices and his governance intentions with actual malice, and whether New York Times v. Sullivan's actual malice standard for public figure defamation remains good law or can be overcome through sustained litigation by a powerful plaintiff.
The Rules
Rule
Under New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), a public figure plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant published a false statement of fact with actual malice. Knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. Additionally, pleadings must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires claims be stated in short, plain, and direct statements.
The Application
Analysis
Trump, a public figure, alleges the Times falsely described his tax practices and reported warnings that he would govern like a dictator. The court rejected the initial 85-page complaint as failing to comply with Rule 8's requirement for conciseness, not on the merits of whether Trump could prove actual malice. Trump must refile a complaint under 40 pages that adequately alleges false statements and the Times' actual malice.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The case remains at an early procedural stage with no ruling on the merits. The complaint has been struck and must be refiled in compliant form. The central unresolved question is whether the Times' publications satisfy the actual malice standard or whether this litigation represents a sustained challenge to Sullivan's precedent.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support