Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times Opens New Doors

Former President Donald Trump has revived his defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, initially seeking $15 billion in damages. The lawsuit was dismissed in part because the court viewed it as a platform for Trump to express grievances against the publication. In his amended filing in a Florida federal court, Trump claims that two articles and a book produced by the Times contain false and defamatory statements about him.

The legal battle could provide a significant opportunity for the Times to explore Trump’s past. Traditionally, the burden of proof in defamation cases lies with the plaintiff. To succeed, Trump must demonstrate that the statements he finds defamatory are untrue. This principle can lead to extensive discovery processes, allowing the Times to gather evidence that may reveal uncomfortable truths about Trump’s history.

In defending against the lawsuit, the Times has the right to obtain documents and testimonies from Trump and third parties. Notably, one of the statements Trump claims is defamatory suggests that producers of the television show “The Apprentice” had to create a version of him that did not accurately reflect his real persona—”measured, thoughtful and endlessly wealthy.” This statement could lead to requests for outtakes from the show, which reportedly capture Trump making inappropriate comments. While the production company MGM is contractually bound to keep these tapes confidential, a subpoena aimed at obtaining them could be a viable avenue for the Times.

Trump’s allegations extend to the title of a 2024 article—“For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandal Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment”—which he argues is defamatory. This claim opens the door for the Times to investigate a range of scandals linked to Trump. For instance, in 2004, Trump purchased the former Maison de L’Amitié in Palm Beach for $41.35 million and later sold it in 2008 to Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million. Questions arise about whether this transaction could be connected to money laundering or to his known association with Jeffrey Epstein.

Additionally, Trump’s complaint challenges various financial transactions reported by the Times as potential tax frauds. Among these is an allegation of a scheme to evade gift and estate taxes by funneling cash from his father through a sham company. Such transactions are pertinent for discovery, potentially leading to the examination of Trump’s financial records and tax returns.

In many defamation cases, media organizations often seek to have complaints dismissed based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Times vs. Sullivan, which protects the press when reporting on public figures unless malice is proven. While this legal precedent provides a robust defense, the Times may choose to conduct a thorough investigation into Trump’s dealings, leveraging the lawsuit as an opportunity to uphold the principles of free press.

As media entities like ABC, CBS, and the Washington Post have faced criticism for settling with Trump in the past, the current landscape presents an imperative for a news organization to stand firm against his challenges. The American public is increasingly seeking accountability from powerful figures, and this lawsuit could serve as a test of the media’s resolve.

Former Watergate prosecutor and legal expert, Akerman, emphasizes the significance of taking a bold stance in defense of the First Amendment. As the case unfolds, it remains to be seen how the Times will navigate the complexities of Trump’s claims while diligently pursuing the truth. This legal confrontation not only shapes the future of Trump’s public persona but also impacts the broader discourse on press freedom and accountability.