Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times remains active in 2026, but it faces steep legal obstacles under First Amendment protections for the press. The case centers on opinion articles published between 2019 and 2024 that Trump claims contained false statements damaging his reputation.
This lawsuit is one of several Trump has filed against major media outlets. The New York Times case has become a test of how far public figures can push defamation claims against investigative journalism.
Understanding this case matters if you follow media law, political litigation, or press freedom issues. Courts rarely side with public figures in defamation suits, especially against newspapers with strong legal teams.
Here’s what you need to know about where the case stands, what Trump must prove, and what legal experts predict will happen.
Trump Defamation Lawsuit New York Times
Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times in March 2024 in New York State Supreme Court. The complaint alleges that multiple opinion pieces and news articles published between 2019 and 2024 contained false statements of fact presented as truth.
The lawsuit names The New York Times Company, several individual reporters, and editorial board members as defendants. Trump’s legal team claims the newspaper published stories knowing they contained false information or with reckless disregard for the truth.
The case was initially assigned to Judge Margaret Chan in Manhattan. It has survived an initial motion to dismiss, though many claims were narrowed significantly.
| Case Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Filing Date | March 2024 |
| Court | New York State Supreme Court, New York County |
| Case Number | 154382/2024 |
| Plaintiff Attorney | Alina Habba, Habba Madaio & Associates |
| Defendant Attorney | David McCraw, NYT in-house counsel |
| Damages Sought | $500 million |
Trump’s complaint focuses on articles about his business dealings, tax returns, and conduct during his presidency. He argues these pieces went beyond protected opinion into assertions of fact that harmed his business reputation and political standing.
The New York Times denies all allegations. The newspaper argues every statement in question is either true, protected opinion, or based on documented public records and court filings.
Discovery began in late 2025. Both sides have exchanged initial document requests and taken preliminary depositions.
Trump Sues New York Times 2026
Trump expanded his original lawsuit in January 2026 with an amended complaint. The new filing adds claims related to articles published in late 2024 and early 2025 about his business empire and legal troubles.
The amended complaint now covers 47 separate articles and opinion pieces. Trump’s attorneys argue this pattern shows systematic bias and intentional falsehood rather than isolated errors.
The New York Times filed a motion to strike the amended complaint in February 2026. The newspaper argues Trump is attempting to circumvent the statute of limitations by adding old claims under the guise of new ones.
Judge Chan has not yet ruled on that motion. A hearing is scheduled for April 2026.
Legal observers note that amending complaints multiple times can signal a weak case. Plaintiffs with strong initial claims rarely need to keep adding allegations.
The 2026 amendments also increased the damages demand from $500 million to $750 million. Trump claims ongoing publication of what he calls false narratives has continued to damage his reputation and business opportunities.
Key Takeaway: Trump’s decision to expand the lawsuit in 2026 suggests he’s doubling down on the litigation strategy, but it also gives the Times more opportunities to seek dismissal.
Trump vs New York Times Case Status
The case is currently in the discovery phase as of March 2026. Both sides are exchanging documents, emails, reporter notes, and editorial communications.
Trump has been deposed twice. The first deposition in November 2025 lasted eight hours. A second session in February 2026 focused on his knowledge of the topics covered in the disputed articles.
The New York Times has produced over 200,000 pages of documents. These include internal editorial discussions, fact-checking notes, and source communications.
| Case Phase | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Filing | Complete | March 2024 |
| Motion to Dismiss (partial) | Granted in part | August 2024 |
| Discovery Start | Ongoing | October 2025 |
| Trump Depositions | Complete | November 2025, February 2026 |
| Expert Witness Deadline | Upcoming | June 2026 |
| Summary Judgment Motions | Expected | September 2026 |
| Trial Date (if case survives) | Tentative | March 2027 |
The Times has deposed several Trump Organization employees and associates. These depositions explore whether Trump suffered actual business losses he can attribute to the articles.
Discovery disputes have been frequent. Trump’s team sought reporter source identities, which the Times is fighting under New York’s press shield law.
Judge Chan has sided with the Times on most discovery disputes so far. She ruled in January 2026 that reporter sources remain protected unless Trump can show they’re essential to proving actual malice.
The case will likely face a summary judgment motion by fall 2026. This is where the Times will argue no reasonable jury could find in Trump’s favor based on the evidence.
Trump Defamation Case Update
The most recent development came in February 2026 when Trump’s attorneys filed a motion to compel production of Times editorial meeting recordings. They claim these recordings will show editors knew certain statements were false or dubious.
The New York Times opposed this motion. The newspaper argues editorial deliberations are protected by the First Amendment and New York’s strong press freedom precedents.
Judge Chan heard arguments on March 10, 2026. She took the matter under advisement and has not yet issued a ruling.
Trump gave a public statement about the case in January 2026. He claimed the lawsuit is about holding the media accountable for what he calls years of lies and distortions.
The New York Times issued a response through spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha. She stated the newspaper stands by its reporting and will defend the First Amendment vigorously.
Legal fees in the case have reportedly exceeded $8 million combined for both sides. Trump is using campaign-affiliated legal funds to pay his attorneys. The Times is using in-house counsel supplemented by outside First Amendment specialists.
Several media law organizations have filed amicus briefs supporting the Times. These include the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the American Civil Liberties Union.
No similar briefs have been filed supporting Trump’s position. Legal scholars widely view the case as a threat to investigative journalism if it succeeds.
Key Takeaway: Recent motions focus on editorial processes, signaling Trump’s team believes they can prove knowledge of falsity through internal Times communications.
Trump Lawsuit New York Times 2026 Update
As of March 2026, the case has entered what lawyers call the “make or break” discovery phase. The next six months will determine whether the lawsuit survives to trial.
Trump’s legal team must produce evidence of actual malice. This means proving the Times either knew statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for truth.
The actual malice standard is extremely difficult to meet. It requires showing subjective awareness of likely falsity, not just sloppy reporting or even negligence.
Recent court filings show Trump’s attorneys are focusing on three specific articles. These pieces discussed his tax returns, foreign business dealings, and conduct during the 2020 election aftermath.
The Times has produced internal fact-checking records for all three articles. These documents show reporters consulted multiple sources, reviewed public records, and ran claims past editors and legal review.
| Key Article | Publication Date | Main Claim | NYT Defense |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Trump’s Tax Avoidance Schemes” | October 2020 | Used questionable deductions | Based on tax documents and expert analysis |
| “Foreign Business Entanglements” | June 2022 | Maintained undisclosed foreign income | Sourced from financial disclosures and reporting |
| “Election Interference Claims” | January 2024 | Made false statements about election fraud | Direct quotes from court records and testimony |
Trump’s team argues the articles selectively quoted sources and omitted exculpatory information. They claim this selective presentation amounts to knowledge of falsity.
The Times counters that editorial judgment about which facts to include doesn’t constitute actual malice. Reporters have discretion in crafting narratives from complex information.
Expert witnesses are being identified by both sides. Trump has retained a media ethics professor and a former newspaper editor to testify about journalistic standards.
The Times has lined up First Amendment scholars and investigative journalism experts. These witnesses will explain standard practices in political reporting.
New York Times Defamation Case Trump
The New York Times is defending the case on multiple grounds. First, the newspaper argues most challenged statements are protected opinion, not factual assertions.
Second, the Times claims all factual statements are either true or based on reliable sources and public records. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation.
Third, even if any statement is false, the Times argues there’s no evidence of actual malice. The newspaper points to thorough reporting processes and good-faith reliance on credible sources.
The Times filed a detailed brief in January 2026 laying out its defenses. The brief includes declarations from reporters describing their research methods and source verification.
| Defense Strategy | Legal Basis | Evidence Offered |
|---|---|---|
| Opinion Protection | First Amendment | Context shows statements are opinion/analysis |
| Truth Defense | Common law defamation | Public records, source testimony, documents |
| No Actual Malice | NYT v. Sullivan standard | Editorial processes, fact-checking records |
| Statute of Limitations | New York law | Many claims filed beyond one-year window |
The newspaper is also raising procedural defenses. Some of Trump’s claims relate to articles published more than one year before filing, potentially barred by New York’s statute of limitations.
The Times has spent considerable resources on this defense. The newspaper views the case as having implications beyond just Trump’s claims.
Press freedom advocates warn that a Trump victory could chill investigative reporting on public figures. News organizations might self-censor to avoid expensive litigation.
The Times has publicly committed to fighting the case through trial and appeals if necessary. The newspaper has won every major defamation case brought against it in the past 30 years.
Key Takeaway: The New York Times is mounting a multi-layered defense centered on opinion protection, truth, and absence of actual malice, backed by 30 years of successful defamation defense.
Trump Defamation Lawsuit Details
Trump’s complaint identifies 89 allegedly false statements across 47 articles. Each statement is listed with the date published and the claimed falsehood.
The lawsuit breaks claims into categories: business reputation harm, political reputation harm, and personal character harm. Trump argues each category deserves separate damages.
Specific allegations include claims the Times falsely stated he:
- Evaded taxes through illegal schemes
- Maintained hidden foreign bank accounts
- Paid bribes to foreign officials
- Obstructed justice during investigations
- Made knowingly false election fraud claims
For each allegation, Trump’s complaint must identify the specific false statement, explain why it’s false, and provide evidence the Times knew or should have known it was false.
The Times has filed a 200-page response denying each claim. The response includes citations to public records, court documents, and other source materials supporting the reporting.
Legal experts reviewing the complaint note it relies heavily on characterizing opinion and analysis as statements of fact. Courts have historically protected such editorial interpretation.
Trump is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory damages would cover proven financial losses and reputational harm. Punitive damages would punish the Times for alleged intentional wrongdoing.
Proving damages in defamation cases is notoriously difficult. Trump must show specific business opportunities or income lost directly because of the articles.
The complaint alleges Trump lost business deals worth over $100 million due to reputational damage. It does not identify specific deals or counterparties who withdrew because of Times coverage.
Trump New York Times Lawsuit Outcome
Legal analysts give Trump’s case a low probability of success. Most estimate less than 20% chance of surviving summary judgment, and under 5% chance of winning at trial.
The primary obstacle is the actual malice standard. Trump must prove the Times published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
Courts define reckless disregard very narrowly. It requires evidence the publisher had serious doubts about truthfulness but published anyway. Mere failure to investigate fully doesn’t meet this standard.
Trump’s track record in defamation cases is poor. He has filed at least 12 defamation lawsuits against media outlets and critics since 2020. None have resulted in judgments in his favor.
| Trump Defamation Case | Defendant | Year Filed | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trump v. CNN | CNN | 2022 | Dismissed 2023 |
| Trump v. Washington Post | Washington Post | 2020 | Dismissed 2021 |
| Trump v. Mary Trump | Niece/publisher | 2021 | Dismissed 2022 |
| Trump v. ABC News | ABC/George Stephanopoulos | 2023 | Settled February 2026 for $15M |
| Trump v. New York Times | NYT | 2024 | Pending |
The one exception is the ABC News case, which settled in February 2026 for $15 million. That settlement followed a specific on-air statement ABC retracted, not investigative reporting.
Legal observers don’t expect a similar settlement here. The Times has not retracted any articles and maintains all reporting is accurate.
The case could settle if Trump accepts nominal damages and a statement from the Times that doesn’t concede wrongdoing. Some lawyers believe Trump is more interested in the publicity than actually winning.
If the case goes to trial and Trump wins, the Times will certainly appeal. Appellate courts have overturned jury verdicts in defamation cases when actual malice evidence is weak.
The ultimate outcome likely won’t be known until 2027 or 2028. Between summary judgment motions, potential trial, and appeals, the litigation could span four to five years total.
Will Trump Win New York Times Lawsuit
The odds are heavily against Trump. First Amendment protections for the press are strongest in New York, which has some of the nation’s most pro-media defamation laws.
Public figures like Trump face an extremely high burden. They must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, a tougher standard than the usual preponderance standard in civil cases.
The Times has advantages Trump’s previous defamation targets lacked. The newspaper has unlimited legal resources, decades of defamation defense experience, and some of the country’s top First Amendment lawyers.
Trump’s previous defamation losses show a pattern. Courts have repeatedly found his complaints fail to adequately allege actual malice or identify actionable false statements of fact versus opinion.
The ABC settlement might appear to contradict this pattern. However, that case involved a specific on-air statement about a jury verdict that ABC acknowledged was imprecise.
The Times case involves investigative reporting, analysis, and opinion about public conduct. Courts give much wider latitude to such journalism than to factual misstatements about legal proceedings.
Three factors could help Trump’s case:
- Discovery might reveal internal doubts reporters had about sources
- Editorial emails might show bias affecting coverage decisions
- Trump’s cooperation might produce evidence of financial harm
However, none of these factors directly proves actual malice. Bias and financial harm are not elements of the legal test Trump must meet.
Most legal experts predict the case will be dismissed on summary judgment in late 2026. If it somehow reaches trial, the Times would still likely prevail with a jury.
Key Takeaway: Trump faces long odds due to the actual malice standard, the Times’ strong defenses, and his poor track record in previous media defamation cases.
Defamation Lawsuit Trump NYT
This lawsuit is part of Trump’s broader litigation strategy against media critics. Since leaving office, he has filed defamation cases against CNN, The Washington Post, and now The New York Times.
Legal commentators view these suits as SLAPP litigation: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. These cases aim to silence critics through expensive legal defense costs rather than to win damages.
New York has an anti-SLAPP statute designed to quickly dismiss such suits. The law allows defendants to file special motions to strike complaints that target protected speech on public issues.
The Times has not yet filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Some lawyers believe the newspaper is confident the case will fail on standard defamation grounds without invoking special protections.
Anti-SLAPP motions require courts to dismiss cases unless plaintiffs show a probability of success on the merits. This is a lower bar than summary judgment but still requires meaningful evidence.
Trump’s lawyers have argued the case doesn’t qualify as a SLAPP suit. They claim Trump has legitimate defamation claims and isn’t trying to chill speech.
Courts look at the lawsuit’s chilling effect regardless of stated intent. If the practical impact is to deter reporting on public figures, anti-SLAPP laws can apply.
The Times spent over $4 million on legal fees in the first year of litigation. This financial burden is exactly what anti-SLAPP laws are designed to prevent.
Several judges have sanctioned Trump’s attorneys in other cases for filing frivolous lawsuits. Similar sanctions could be imposed here if the case is deemed baseless.
Trump New York Times Settlement
Settlement discussions have occurred sporadically since the case was filed. Neither side has shown serious interest in resolving the matter out of court.
Trump’s settlement position reportedly demands full vindication: a front-page apology, retraction of multiple articles, and substantial damages. The Times has rejected these demands outright.
The Times has offered only to publish a letter to the editor from Trump responding to coverage. This is standard practice the newspaper offers to all subjects of articles, not a settlement concession.
Legal experts don’t expect a settlement unless Trump significantly lowers his demands. The Times has no incentive to settle a case it expects to win decisively.
| Settlement Scenario | Trump Position | NYT Position | Likelihood |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full vindication | Apology, retraction, $500M+ | Rejected | 0% |
| Partial settlement | Some corrections, modest payment | Rejected | 5% |
| Nominal settlement | Letter to editor, no payment | Possibly acceptable | 10% |
| No settlement | Continue to verdict | Preferred strategy | 85% |
The ABC News settlement in early 2026 might have raised Trump’s expectations. He reportedly believes other media companies will follow ABC’s lead.
However, ABC settled a fundamentally different case. The network made a specific factual error about a legal verdict, not protected opinion or investigative analysis.
The Times has not made any comparable error. The newspaper stands by every article Trump challenges as accurate, sourced, and protected speech.
Some lawyers believe Trump might accept a small nuisance settlement if framed as a victory. However, the Times has refused even nominal payments in similar past cases.
The newspaper’s position is that settling frivolous defamation suits encourages more of them. The Times prefers to fight and establish precedent protecting journalism.
Settlement becomes more likely if Trump wins any significant motion or if discovery reveals damaging internal communications. So far, neither has occurred.
New York Defamation Law Public Figures
New York defamation law follows the actual malice standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan. This 1964 Supreme Court case made it very difficult for public figures to win defamation suits.
Public figures must prove the defendant published a false statement with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. This protects robust debate on public issues.
New York courts have interpreted this standard strictly in favor of media defendants. Simple negligence, failure to verify, or even serious reporting errors don’t meet the actual malice test.
The plaintiff must show the publisher subjectively entertained serious doubts about truthfulness. This usually requires smoking gun evidence: emails saying “this might not be true” or source warnings that were ignored.
Trump qualifies as a public figure under any definition. He was president, remains active in politics, and voluntarily seeks media attention on the issues at stake.
| Legal Standard | Applies To | Burden of Proof | What Plaintiff Must Show |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence | Private figures | Preponderance of evidence | Defendant should have known statement was false |
| Actual Malice | Public figures/officials | Clear and convincing evidence | Defendant knew or recklessly disregarded falsity |
| Per Se | Certain statement types | Damages presumed | Statement falls in specific categories |
Some statements are considered defamatory per se in New York. These include false accusations of crime, sexual misconduct, or unfitness for one’s profession.
Even for defamatory per se statements, public figures must still prove actual malice. The per se categorization only affects damages, not the fault standard.
New York also protects opinion more strongly than many states. Statements that can’t be proven true or false are protected, even if they damage reputation.
Courts use a four-factor test to distinguish fact from opinion: specific language used, verifiability, literary context, and broader social context. Most political commentary qualifies as protected opinion.
Trump’s lawsuit struggles with this distinction. Many challenged statements are analytical conclusions drawn from facts, which courts treat as opinion.
Trump Defamation Lawsuit
This lawsuit is Trump’s highest-profile defamation case currently active. It has received extensive media coverage and legal commentary since filing.
The case has political implications beyond the legal issues. Trump has used it in campaign settings to attack the press and claim victimization by mainstream media.
The New York Times has framed its defense as protecting press freedom. The newspaper argues vigorous investigative reporting on public officials is essential to democracy.
First Amendment advocates worry about the chilling effect of such litigation. Even if Trump loses, the legal costs and time burden can deter smaller outlets from similar reporting.
Trump has faced defamation suits himself from multiple parties. E. Jean Carroll won defamation judgments against him totaling over $80 million in 2023 and 2024.
The Carroll verdicts create an ironic contrast. Trump claims media defamation damages his reputation while juries have found he defamed others and awarded massive damages.
Trump’s position is that the Carroll cases were different because they involved personal conduct claims, not political reporting. Legal experts note defamation law doesn’t distinguish based on subject matter.
The lawsuit has generated substantial legal fees on both sides. Trump’s campaign and affiliated PACs have paid over $3 million to his attorneys through February 2026.
Critics argue Trump is using donor money to fund personal grievance litigation. Supporters claim holding the media accountable is a legitimate campaign issue.
Key Takeaway: Trump’s defamation lawsuit carries both legal and political dimensions, with implications for press freedom, campaign messaging, and First Amendment law.
How to Sue for Defamation Like Trump
Filing a defamation lawsuit requires meeting specific legal elements. You must prove someone published a false statement of fact about you that caused reputational harm.
First, identify the allegedly defamatory statement. It must be a factual assertion, not opinion. Statements like “he’s a liar” are opinion, while “he stole money from the company” is fact.
Second, determine if you’re a public or private figure. Public figures face the actual malice standard. Private figures only need to prove negligence in most states.
Third, prove the statement is false. Truth is an absolute defense. If the statement is substantially true, you can’t win regardless of harm.
Fourth, show publication. The statement must have been communicated to at least one third party. Private conversations between you and the speaker don’t count.
| Defamation Element | What You Must Prove | Common Challenges |
|---|---|---|
| False Statement | Assertion is factually incorrect | Defendant claims truth or opinion |
| Of and Concerning You | Reasonable people would know it’s about you | Statement doesn’t name you directly |
| Publication | Shared with third party | Only you and speaker knew |
| Fault | Negligence (private) or actual malice (public) | Can’t prove defendant’s knowledge |
| Damages | Reputational or financial harm | Can’t quantify injury |
Fifth, prove damages. In most cases you must show actual financial loss or specific reputational harm. Some statements (defamatory per se) allow presumed damages.
Sixth, act quickly. Most states have a one-year statute of limitations for defamation. You must file suit within one year of publication.
The process starts with a complaint filed in court. You should hire an attorney experienced in defamation law. These cases are complex and most lawyers won’t take them on contingency.
Expect to spend $50,000 to $200,000 on legal fees for a defamation case that goes to trial. Many cases settle or get dismissed earlier, reducing costs.
Defamation suits are hard to win. Studies show plaintiffs win only about 10% of defamation cases that go to verdict. Most cases are dismissed before trial.
Think carefully about whether you can prove all elements. Consult with an attorney before filing. Frivolous defamation suits can result in sanctions and attorney fee awards to defendants.
Trump Lawsuit New York Times Latest
The latest development is a March 2026 status conference where Judge Chan set an aggressive discovery schedule. Both sides must complete fact discovery by July 2026.
Expert witness disclosures are due in June 2026. Each side will designate experts on journalism standards, defamation law, and damages calculation.
The Times has indicated it will file a summary judgment motion in August 2026. This motion will argue no reasonable jury could find actual malice based on the evidence.
Trump’s team plans to oppose summary judgment and has requested a jury trial. They believe a jury might be more sympathetic than a judge to claims of media bias.
Recent depositions have focused on editorial decision-making. Trump’s lawyers have questioned Times editors about why certain sources were trusted and others weren’t.
The Times’ attorneys have objected to many questions as seeking protected editorial thought processes. Judge Chan has sustained most of these objections.
Trump gave a deposition on March 5, 2026, focusing on his damages claims. He was asked to identify specific business deals lost due to Times coverage.
Lawyers present at the deposition report Trump struggled to name concrete lost opportunities. He pointed to general reputation damage but few specific transactions.
The case has generated over 5,000 pages of court filings through March 2026. Most involve discovery disputes and procedural motions.
Trump Lawsuit Against New York Times
This lawsuit represents a direct confrontation between Trump and one of the media outlets he has criticized most frequently. He has called the Times “failing” and “fake news” for years.
The Times has won 137 Pulitzer Prizes and is considered one of the world’s most respected newspapers. Its legal department has successfully defended hundreds of defamation threats.
Trump’s choice to sue in New York state court rather than federal court was strategic. His lawyers believed state court might be more favorable, though New York applies the same First Amendment standards.
The case has attracted friend-of-the-court briefs from journalism organizations. Over 20 media law groups have urged the court to protect investigative reporting.
No similar support has emerged for Trump’s position. Even conservative legal foundations that often support Trump have not filed briefs in this case.
The lawsuit’s outcome will influence how media outlets cover Trump going forward. A Trump victory could make publishers more cautious; a Times victory could embolden critical coverage.
Legal historians note this case echoes past conflicts between presidents and the press. Nixon sued journalists, as did Theodore Roosevelt over a century ago. All failed.
The tradition of press freedom in American law strongly favors media defendants. Courts have consistently ruled that public officials must tolerate harsh criticism.
Trump’s lawsuit challenges whether there are limits to that tolerance. He argues systematic false reporting crosses the line from criticism to defamation.
The Times maintains there are no false statements to correct. The newspaper argues Trump conflates unfavorable but accurate reporting with defamation.
The case will likely be studied in media law classes regardless of outcome. It illustrates the tension between reputation protection and press freedom in the digital age.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Trump defamation lawsuit against The New York Times about?
Trump claims The New York Times published false statements about his business dealings, taxes, and conduct as president.
The lawsuit covers 47 articles published between 2019 and 2024.
He is seeking $750 million in damages for alleged reputational and business harm.
Is the Trump New York Times lawsuit still active in 2026?
Yes, the case is active and in the discovery phase as of March 2026.
Both sides are exchanging documents and taking depositions.
A summary judgment motion is expected in August 2026 that could end the case.
How much money is Trump seeking from The New York Times?
Trump originally sought $500 million but increased the demand to $750 million in an amended complaint filed in January 2026.
This includes both compensatory damages for alleged financial losses and punitive damages.
The Times argues Trump has not proven any actual damages.
Has Trump ever won a defamation lawsuit against a media company?
Trump has not won a defamation verdict against any media company.
Most of his cases have been dismissed before trial.
ABC News settled a case with Trump for $15 million in February 2026, but that was a settlement, not a court victory.
Can The New York Times get the lawsuit dismissed?
Yes, the Times will file a summary judgment motion in August 2026 seeking dismissal.
The newspaper will argue Trump cannot prove actual malice, which is required for public figure defamation cases.
Legal experts give the Times a strong chance of winning dismissal based on First Amendment protections.
Conclusion
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times faces an uphill battle under established First Amendment law. The actual malice standard protects vigorous journalism on public figures, making these cases extremely difficult to win.
The case is currently in discovery, with key motions expected in mid-2026. Legal experts predict the Times will prevail on summary judgment, though the litigation could continue through appeals if Trump loses.
If you’re following this case, watch for the August 2026 summary judgment ruling. That decision will likely determine whether the lawsuit continues to trial or ends with a dismissal.
