Preliminary
In the United States, between the president and the civilians can occasionally be “accusations” and “language attacks” and even “legal accusations” under the public eye.
Some say it is a “democratization” of American society; others say it is a “performing” of legal proceedings.
At 11:45 p.m. on September 16 Beijing time, U.S. President Trump announced on his social account that he had sued the famous U.S. media "New York Times" on the grounds of bribery, and filed an astonishing $ 15 billion claim against the other party.
In a tweet, Trump outraged the New York Times as the "worst and most corrupt" newspaper in U.S. history, saying it had been "lipping" about him, his family and his "American interests priority" for more than a decade.
He said he had filed a lawsuit against the newspaper in Florida.
The U.S. President’s Big Requirements
To provide evidence, Trump searched for clues in an article published in the New York Times, including an editorial published before the 2024 presidential election last year, saying “Trump is not suitable for president.” and a book published in 2024 by the newspaper’s partner Penguin Landon Publishing, entitled “The Lucky Losers: How Donald Trump Wasted His Father’s Wealth and Created the Illusion of Success.”
The indictment states:
"The defendant maliciously published this book and these articles, knowing that these publications were rife with objectionable distortions and fabrications about President Trump."
According to the book, Trump did not "start from scratch", but squandered his father's wealth; Its real estate empire relies on "financial operation" and "public relations packaging" to maintain; The book even mercilessly points out that its success is "a manufactured illusion".
Trump was angry to accuse the content of “deliberate abuse” that not only damaged his personal reputation, but also caused the stock price of his media company to fall and market value to shrink.
Trump’s lawyers said in the paper that the publications damaged Trump’s business reputation and personal reputation, causing huge economic losses to his brand value and significant damage to his future financial prospects.
Trump’s lawyer also said: “The damage to the price of the shares of the Trump Media Technology Group (TMTG) is an example of the defendant’s harassment of President Trump.”
Just after Trump furiously accused those media of “malignant” behavior, he did not forget to proudly assert the results he had achieved in counteracting these “dirty” media campaigns.
He added that he has successfully prosecuted other “fake news media” such as ABC and Columbia.
It should be pointed out that Trump's claim is closely related to a report in The New York Times on September 10th.
At the time, the report claimed that Trump sent a note and painting in 2003 to the late American wealthy Jeffrey Epstein with special implications to celebrate his 50th birthday, with the paper suspected of having Trump's personal signature.
However, Trump completely denied the existence of the so-called special letter, and indignantly pointed out that the abominable purpose of the report was to deliberately undermine the smooth progress of his presidential campaign.
Trump himself had previously publicly accused the Wall Street Journal of "forged letters" and said that "this is not my painting, and I don't paint".
Earlier in 2025, he filed a similar lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its owners, claiming at least $10 billion for the same reason the newspaper that Trump's name appeared on the birthday greeting card sent to Epstein in 2003.
Finally, Trump’s summary rises to “political heights”:
The New York Times's report has long lost its objectivity and has become a public opinion tool of the Democratic Party.
The Shield of Media Protection
President Trump and his team seem confident and determined to win, but the "insiders" among them must know that under the current legal system in the United States, there are insurmountable obstacles for them to win this lawsuit.
The major difficulties arise from the U.S. Supreme Court, a landmark judgment established in the 1964 “New York Times Case of Shali,” thus establishing a typical case for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: the public and the media criticizing governments and officials will not be easily judged as “sick.”
In order to protect freedom of the press, the judgment sets extremely strict standards of “practical malicious” intent against public figures, such as Trump, the president of the United States.
The so-called “factual malicious intent” is to require the plaintiff to fully prove the defendant’s subjective malicious intent. Since it is “subjective”, it is not necessarily easy to measure, record and verify. Therefore, it is a recognised very high evidence threshold in judicial practice.
So the Trump team simply noted that the reporting was wrong is far from enough, and it has to come up with solid evidence that the media was revealing the “knowing culprits” or “disregarding facts and falsehoods” at the time of the release.
This requires Trump's legal counsel and team of lawyers to work hard, not only to prove that the relevant statements in the book Lucky Loser are false and the plot is fabricated, but also to further prove to the court that Penguin Langdon Press, the reporter and publisher of The New York Times, knew that they were false or seriously doubted their authenticity when publishing these contents, but still chose to publish them.
In the face of Trump’s fierce accusations, U.S. law provides a solid “shield” for investigative news reports as long as media companies such as the New York Times and Penguin Landon can prove that their reports rely on “surface” reliable sources, such as public documents, financial records, court archives, tax data, interview records, and so on.
Moreover, reasonable verification work before the release, even after the discovery of some defects in the content, is often enough to successfully defeat the allegations of "real maliciousness".
In addition, the authority of the book The Lucky Losers adds to its credibility. They are New York Times experienced investigative journalists who have previously honoured the highest press honor – the Pulitzer Prize – for profoundly digging and reporting on Trump’s “tax issues.”
Therefore, the identity background of the author of this book represents the legitimacy and legitimacy of this book to some extent. It seems very easy to believe that when writing the new book, the author probably has a lot of substantive material from tax documents, financial data and interviews with key insiders.
These are the core elements that constitute the “reliable source” and “reasonable verification” that will become the most powerful “shelter” and counterweapon of defendants in court against the Trump team’s “real malicious” allegations.
Possible outcomes of proceedings
Leaving the challenge of the high difficulty of the legal level, the case itself is destined to be a "struggle and corner between heavyweight players."
On the one hand, Trump, the current US President, who is worth billions of dollars and is known to use legal proceedings as a weapon of political struggle; On the other side is The New York Times, which has deep pockets and a top legal think tank, and its publishing partner Penguin Langdon Press.
Therefore, in a sense, both sides have the ability of "protracted war" that can afford long-term lawsuits. However, "evenly matched" means "both sides lose", and it also means that both sides may make compromises and finally reconcile.
The most likely course of the case, not a dramatic court trial and a heavenly compensation verdict, is even more likely: the judge directly rejected the Trump team’s lawsuit request in the early stages of the case, on the basis of difficult to meet “factual malicious” criteria.
However, Trump's legal team is not "vegetarian" either, and will definitely throw out all kinds of specious or valid evidence in hand.
Of course, the case probably can't be dismissed immediately. If the two parties don't reconcile, it will turn into a "legal tug-of-war" with a great probability that is protracted, complicated in procedures and costs huge attorney fees to both parties.
In the face of the fortress of "freedom of the press" built by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the new york Times v. Sullivan case, the success rate of public figures' defamation accusations against authoritative media is minimal.
The huge claim amount and high-profile announcement method are more like a well-planned "political show". It also represents the current US President Trump's tough stance and determination to fight against the so-called "corrupt mainstream media".
At present, Trump has a strong sense of self-confidence and honor, and he wants to leave a "immortal" political legacy for his American presidential career. Plus, there's a near-term urgent need: to win the Republican midterm elections next year in 2026!
References:
On the bar! Trump made a high-profile announcement: Compensate me for $15 billion!
The World Times 2025-09-16 19:41
Trump says he will sue the New York Times for $15 billion
The New Wave of Finance.
Untimely and just right "focus" (2)
The Beijing Evening News.
Scale of Criticizing Officials
Anthony Lewis, Beijing University Publications.