Legal scholars call Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times frivolous. Experts say it threatens press freedom more than it helps him.
Table of Contents
Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times is Meritless
Introduction
President Donald Trump’s latest defamation lawsuit against The New York Times is facing sharp criticism from First Amendment scholars and legal experts. While the suit seeks billions in damages, experts say it is unlikely to succeed in court and appears more focused on intimidating the press than winning a legal battle.
According to constitutional law experts, Trump’s filing is less about defamation law and more about creating a chilling effect on critical journalism.
Legal Experts: The Lawsuit Lacks Merit
Several prominent First Amendment scholars say the lawsuit is fundamentally flawed:
- Rebecca Tushnet, Harvard Law School: Called the 85-page complaint “a statement of contempt for truth, the American public, and the judicial process.” She noted that even its claims about Fred Trump — Trump’s deceased father — are irrelevant since the dead cannot be defamed.
- RonNell Andersen Jones, University of Utah: Said “the vast majority” of Trump’s claims are not actionable, adding that the real aim is to create a “manifesto against the press” and burden media outlets with staggering legal costs.
- Jonathan Peters, University of Georgia: Highlighted the extremely high bar for proving “actual malice” in defamation cases involving public figures, saying Trump’s claims are unlikely to survive early dismissal.
A Pattern of “Weaponized Litigation”
Advocacy groups also criticized Trump’s legal strategy as an attack on press freedom.
- PEN America described the lawsuit as part of a “dangerous pattern” where Trump seeks to punish publishers who challenge his narrative.
- Reporters Without Borders (RSF) noted Trump was emboldened by earlier settlements with Disney and Paramount, which paid millions rather than fight drawn-out lawsuits. Unlike those corporations, however, The New York Times has no competing entertainment businesses and a stronger record of fighting Trump’s legal claims.
Why the Lawsuit Faces Long Odds
Trump’s lawsuit against The Times and Penguin Random House alleges defamation tied to reporting and publishing decisions. But courts have consistently upheld strong protections for political reporting.
Key legal hurdles:
- Actual Malice Standard – Trump must prove the Times knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
- Public Concern Protection – Courts routinely shield reporting on public figures when supported by disclosed facts.
- Costly but Weak Case – Even if dismissed, defending such lawsuits can cost publishers millions, which some experts say is Trump’s real goal.
Political Theater or Legal Strategy?
For many analysts, the lawsuit seems more about politics than law. Trump promoted the case on Truth Social, writing that supporters feel “IT’S ABOUT TIME!” His legal filings have become political tools, aimed at reinforcing his image as a fighter against “biased media.”
While legal victory appears unlikely, the political win may be in energizing his base and intimidating media organizations from publishing aggressive reporting in the future.
FAQs (FAQ Schema Ready)
Q1: What is Trump suing The New York Times for?
A1: He filed a defamation lawsuit claiming the Times and Penguin Random House published false information damaging to him.
Q2: Why do experts call the lawsuit meritless?
A2: Legal scholars say the claims don’t meet the high standard of proving actual malice, making the case unlikely to succeed.
Q3: Has Trump filed similar lawsuits before?
A3: Yes. He has previously sued the Wall Street Journal, ABC News, and CBS News’ parent companies, some of which settled out of court.
Q4: What is “actual malice” in defamation law?
A4: It means knowingly publishing false information or showing reckless disregard for the truth — a standard very difficult to prove.
Q5: Is the lawsuit more political than legal?
A5: Many experts believe Trump’s lawsuit is designed to intimidate critics and score political points rather than win in court.
Conclusion
Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times may make headlines, but First Amendment experts say it stands little chance in court. Instead, it reflects a broader strategy of weaponized litigation, aimed at silencing critical journalism and reshaping the media narrative.
With strong constitutional protections for political reporting, The Times is expected to fight back, setting the stage for another high-profile battle over press freedom in America.
👉 Do you think Trump’s lawsuits are about justice or politics? Share your views in the comments below!