President Donald Trump said late Monday, September 15, 2025, that he has brought a $15 billion defamation and libel lawsuit against The New York Times, accusing the paper of acting as a partisan outlet for Democrats and effectively making an illegal campaign contribution in 2024 through its endorsement of Kamala Harris.
He announced the filing on Truth Social and said the case would be brought in Florida federal court.
The Times acknowledged receipt of inquiries about the lawsuit but did not immediately issue a detailed response, according to early reporting by Reuters and the Associated Press.
What Trump says the Times did
In his announcement, Trump alleged the Times engaged in a decades-long pattern of “lying” about him, his family, and the MAGA movement.
The complaint, as described by national wires, points to specific articles and editorial treatments that Trump’s team says conveyed provably false assertions that harmed his reputation and business interests.
He highlighted the paper’s front-page endorsement of Kamala Harris as evidence of political bias and framed it as an in-kind contribution to her campaign.
The suit argues that editors and reporters acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Trump’s lawyers say the newspaper ignored contrary evidence, relied on hostile or anonymous sources, and packaged insinuations as fact in ways that would lead an ordinary reader to conclude he had committed wrongdoing or lacked integrity.
The legal bar he must clear
As a public official, Trump must meet the actual malice standard from the Supreme Court’s landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan.
That requires proving not just falsity and harm, but that the Times published with knowledge that statements were false or with serious doubts about their truth. The standard is intentionally high to protect aggressive reporting and debate about public figures.
Defamation law also draws a line between statements of fact and protected opinion. Editorials and opinion columns enjoy strong First Amendment protection when they clearly express viewpoints based on disclosed facts.
Liability typically turns on whether a passage asserts a concrete fact that can be proved true or false, whether that assertion is inaccurate, and whether the outlet acted with the required mental state. Expect early motions to dismiss that argue the challenged passages are substantially true, fair comment, or nonactionable opinion.
Why Florida and what to expect procedurally
Trump said the suit is being filed in Florida. Venue choices in speech cases can influence both procedural tools and timelines.
The Times will likely seek dismissal at the pleading stage and may invoke anti-SLAPP protections where available, arguing that the claims target speech on matters of public concern. If the case survives, discovery could be extensive, reaching newsroom notes, emails, source communications, and editorial deliberations.
Courts often tailor discovery in press cases to balance relevance against newsroom confidentiality, but depositions of editors and reporters are common if claims proceed.
Damages are a major feature here. Trump’s team is asking for $15 billion, a number that dwarfs typical media cases.
The court will scrutinize how plaintiffs tie that figure to reputational and economic harms, including any claimed effects on Trump businesses or Trump Media & Technology Group. Punitive damages, if permitted, would require clear and convincing proof of actual malice and egregious conduct.
Trump’s broader media litigation campaign
The action against the Times follows a series of high-profile clashes with national outlets. Trump has touted settlements with ABC News and with Paramount’s “60 Minutes,” which resolved disputes over statements he said were false and damaging.
Those agreements did not include admissions of wrongdoing, but they illustrate a strategy of aggressive litigation combined with willingness to accept unconventional remedies that allow him to declare success.
He has also filed other suits against media companies over reports he says mischaracterized his finances or associations.
Supporters say pushing back in court is necessary to deter what they view as coordinated media smears. Critics argue these suits are designed to chill investigative reporting by imposing defense costs and discovery burdens, even when the claims are unlikely to prevail under Sullivan.
