Trump's Multibillion-Dollar Defamation Fight With The New York Times Lives On — For Now

2026-07-28

A Federal Judge Keeps the Door Open, But Demands a Cleaner Complaint

President Donald Trump's long-running $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times has cleared another procedural hurdle, though not without conditions. Rather than granting the Times' request to have the case thrown out entirely, U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday of the Middle District of Florida chose a middle path: he deferred ruling on the newspaper's motion to dismiss and instead ordered Trump's legal team to submit a revised version of the complaint.

The order, signed Monday, gives Trump's attorneys until August 27 to file that amended filing. Once it's submitted, the Times will have a three-week window to respond with what the judge described as a "succinct" reply. Notably, Merryday's order didn't spell out exactly what he considers deficient in the current complaint — leaving both sides, and outside observers, to speculate about what changes the amendment might need to survive scrutiny.

This Isn't the First Time the Suit Has Been Sent Back

This is actually the second time Trump has been told to rework this lawsuit. When the case was originally filed, it ran an unwieldy 85 pages. Merryday tossed that version out, instructing Trump to come back with something "simple, concise, and direct." In doing so, the judge offered a pointed rebuke of the original filing's tone, remarking that a legal complaint isn't meant to serve as "a public forum for vituperation and invective" or a "protected platform to rage against an adversary."

Trump's team took the hint, at least in terms of length. A trimmed-down version — under 40 pages — was refiled that October. That complaint accused the Times of defamation tied to a pair of 2024 articles and to "Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success," a book authored by two Times reporters. The suit named the Times Company itself, several of its journalists, and the book's publisher, Penguin Random House, as defendants, and it sought $15 billion in damages plus additional punitive damages.

The Times promptly moved to dismiss that refiled complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid legal claim. Monday's ruling is the judge's response to that dismissal motion — and rather than granting it, he's giving Trump one more shot to fix whatever he sees as lacking.

Both Sides Are Framing the Outcome Differently

Unsurprisingly, Trump wasted no time declaring victory. Posting on Truth Social, he characterized the ruling as proof that the Times had once again failed in its effort to get the case dismissed, describing the lawsuit as a "powerhouse" effort to hold what he called the "Fake News" accountable after what he framed as a decade of unfair treatment.

The Times, for its part, has consistently maintained that the lawsuit is without merit. When the case was previously refiled, a spokesperson for the paper stated flatly that nothing about the underlying arguments had changed and characterized the litigation as an attempt to intimidate the newsroom and generate publicity rather than a serious legal claim. Penguin Random House echoed that sentiment, standing behind the book and its authors.

Part of a Broader Pattern of Litigation Against the Press

This case doesn't exist in isolation. It's one of several defamation suits Trump or entities connected to him have filed against major media organizations and financial institutions in recent years, each seeking substantial damages. Both The Wall Street Journal and the BBC are fighting similar defamation suits brought by Trump, and in both of those cases, the news organizations have raised comparable arguments about a lack of supporting evidence.

What Happens Next

For now, the ball is in Trump's court — literally. His legal team has roughly a month to produce an amended complaint that addresses whatever concerns led Merryday to withhold a ruling on dismissal. Once that's filed, the Times gets three weeks to respond, after which the judge will presumably rule on whether the case has enough legal substance to proceed. Until then, one of the highest-profile press-freedom-adjacent legal battles in the country remains very much alive.

Sources