Trump 15 Billion Lawsuit Dismissed: Judge Calls Filing Improper

Donald Trump’s $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times was remarkably similar to his previous conflicts with the media in that it was more about showcasing his battle for public attention than it was about winning in court. Within days, a federal judge dismissed the case, deeming it “imper and impermissible,” after it accused Penguin Random House, the Times, and four of its reporters of defaming him. The $15 billion figure itself appeared especially exaggerated, intended more to make headlines than to represent any actual monetary damages.

Judge Steven Merryday’s ruling, which criticized the 85-page complaint for being unduly flowery and laden with political rhetoric, was remarkably explicit. He pointed out that the defamation allegations weren’t even stated until the very last few pages. Rather, the lawsuit began with passages celebrating Trump’s political ascent and lauding his unique genius. The judge saw this as a publicity stunt rather than a valid legal complaint. He gave Trump 28 days to submit a new filing in a condensed, uncomplicated format that was no longer than 40 pages long.

Donald Trump – Profile

With aides adamant that the lawsuit remained a “powerhouse case” against what he frequently refers to as “Fake News,” Trump’s team promptly pledged to press on. The Times, on the other hand, applauded the quick dismissal, stating that it supported their assertion that the filing was a political smear rather than a legitimate legal document. In agreement, Penguin Random House described the decision as a robust defense of independent reporting.

Given that these cases rarely succeed in the past, the bigger question is why Trump keeps bringing them. Public figures are subject to a very high standard under defamation law, according to legal experts, which calls for evidence of actual malice, such as reckless disregard for the truth or knowledge of falsity. But for Trump, winning in court is rarely the aim. His supporters are energized and his image as a fighter under siege by hostile elites is reinforced by these lawsuits, which act as political theater.

This tactic has been incredibly successful in influencing public opinion. His lawsuit was the latest in a series of ones brought against major media organizations, including ABC News, CBS News, and The Wall Street Journal. In order to avoid protracted litigation, some networks even decided to settle, paying multimillion-dollar sums. Critics contend that these settlements only give Trump more confidence and demonstrate that even in cases where claims are legally tenuous, aggressive legal strategies can result in financial and reputational leverage.

The ramifications are not limited to Trump. Advocacy organizations for journalism caution that these lawsuits have a chilling effect, deterring reporters from taking on delicate investigations. Filings with a similar style could silence or bankrupt smaller outlets that lack the Times’ legal budgets. Veteran First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams described Trump’s case as “ridiculous in law but extraordinarily dangerous in policy,” pointing out that it normalizes litigation as a tool against accountability, endangering press freedoms.

Trump’s strategy is also indicative of a larger trend in celebrity culture where lawsuits are used to manage a brand. While Johnny Depp’s defamation trial changed his public image following years of controversy, Meghan Markle was successful in her lawsuit against the Daily Mail for violating her privacy. The distinction is in the breadth of the litigation: Trump presents it as a national conflict between himself and media organizations, whereas others litigate personal matters. By doing this, he turns every court case into a story that makes headlines, regardless of how it turns out in court.

Observers draw comparisons to leaders overseas. Both Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy sought to suppress the press by using legal action and government controls to silence dissenting opinions. Despite being rooted in American legal traditions, Trump’s actions resemble those strategies, indicating that political leaders around the world are finding incredibly successful ways to use the legal system as tools of intimidation rather than just justice.

It is impossible to ignore the $15 billion amount alone. It works very well as a publicity tool because it conveys a sense of grandeur and existential importance. Judges and legal experts, however, believe it to be essentially unimportant, a statistic chosen more for its shock value than for its basis in damages. This discrepancy between appearance and content highlights how Trump’s litigation strategy works: court filings that are essentially campaign advertisements disguised in legalese and directly targeted at public opinion.

Dismissals, however, do not negate the effect. Every lawsuit puts Trump back at the forefront of the national discourse, frequently taking precedence over other political discussions. His supporters become closer to him as they see judicial rebukes as evidence of institutionalized bias. His filings, on the other hand, are viewed by detractors as careless attacks on constitutional values, further dividing the public.

Trump’s cases are likely to continue, according to history. Both his 2020 campaign lawsuit over an opinion column and his 2021 lawsuit against the Times over tax reporting were unsuccessful. However, the pattern doesn’t appear to be slowing down. Each filing serves as a new call to action, reminding supporters that he continues to fight against powerful media outlets.