U.S. President Donald Trump has filed a $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times, accusing the paper, several of its reporters, and publisher Penguin Random House of defaming him and harming his political reputation, businesses, and even his crypto venture, the TRUMP memecoin ($TRUMP).
The suit was filed in a Florida court and names Times journalists Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner, Peter Baker, and Michael S. Schmidt as defendants. It also points to the publication of the book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success (Penguin Random House, 2024) as evidence of “malicious intent.”
Trump’s accusations and Times’ response
Trump described the lawsuit as a response to what he called “a long history of lies and smears” by the paper.
“The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops NOW! The suit is being brought in the great state of Florida,” Trump wrote.
The filing argues that the Times’ coverage extended beyond politics to his commercial ventures, including the Trump Organization and his crypto token, causing “direct and easily foreseeable harm” to profitability and investor confidence.
A New York Times spokesperson rejected the claims:
“This case lacks any legitimate legal claims and is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting.”
Legal context: why these lawsuits rarely succeed
Defamation lawsuits by public figures in the U.S. face an extremely high legal bar. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, a public official must prove not only that a statement was false but also that it was published with “actual malice”—meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Recent high‑profile examples show the difficulty:
- Sarah Palin v. New York Times (2022): Jury rejected Palin’s claims on grounds she couldn’t prove actual malice.
- Devin Nunes cases (2019–2021): The former congressman brought multiple suits against CNN and other publishers, most of which were dismissed or settled without damages.
First Amendment experts widely note that courts give media outlets broad protection when reporting on public figures, especially during election cycles.
“Plaintiffs like Trump face a nearly insurmountable burden. Unless there is smoking‑gun evidence of deliberate fabrication, these claims almost always fail,” said Jane Kirtley, professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, in a 2024 lecture on public‑figure defamation cases.
Crypto angle
The lawsuit is unusual in extending defamation claims to a cryptocurrency project. Trump’s filing alleges that negative reporting worsened investor sentiment around his $TRUMP memecoin.
According to CoinGecko data, $TRUMP has fallen more than 80% from its peak since launch. However, memecoins are notoriously volatile: Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, and PEPE have all seen drawdowns of 70–95% in past cycles. Analysts caution that attributing a token’s decline primarily to news coverage oversimplifies complex market dynamics.
“Memecoins rise and fall mostly on trader sentiment, liquidity, and hype cycles,” said David Duong, Head of Institutional Research at Coinbase, in a recent note on token volatility. “Media coverage can amplify those moves, but the downside risk is inherent.”
Political and business backdrop
The lawsuit also revisits the 2024 campaign, in which Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris with 312 electoral votes. The filing argues that Times reporting was part of “industrial‑scale defamation” designed to sway voters.
For the Times, the case recalls earlier friction with Trump during his presidency, when he frequently labeled critical coverage “fake news.”
This new action is one of several legal battles between Trump and major media outlets, although similar suits have rarely produced damages. Legal analysts say the sheer scope of damages sought, $15 billion, makes this case one of the largest individual defamation claims ever filed against a news organization.
What comes next
The case will proceed through the Florida courts, where Trump’s team will have to establish not just reputational harm but also actual malice under Sullivan. Lawyers expect an early motion to dismiss by the Times, potentially setting up a lengthy appeals process if the case is not immediately thrown out.
Legal experts say the most likely outcome is dismissal unless compelling new evidence is introduced. Nonetheless, the suit highlights Trump’s strategy of taking disputes with traditional media into the courts while tying the argument to his emerging business ventures in crypto.
Gunel Ismayilova
Disclaimer: All materials on this site are for informational purposes only. None of the material should be interpreted as investment advice. Please note that despite the nature of much of the material created and hosted on this website, HODL FM is not a financial reference resource, and the opinions of authors and other contributors are their own and should not be taken as financial advice. If you require advice. HODL FM strongly recommends contacting a qualified industry professional.
