• A New York judge has dismissed Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation and libel lawsuit against The New York Times, citing an excessively long and unfocused complaint.
  • The court permitted Trump to refile a revised complaint if it presents more direct and concise legal claims, moving beyond what was described as theatrical public rhetoric.
  • Legal experts widely view the lawsuit's chances of ultimate success as slim, given the high bar for defamation claims by public figures established in precedents like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

A New York judge has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s sprawling $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, dealing an initial procedural setback to his legal campaign against the newspaper. The ruling, however, leaves the door open for Trump’s legal team to try again with a more narrowly tailored complaint.

The court found the initial filing, which accused the paper of defamation and libel across multiple articles and a book, to be overly theatrical and lacking in the clear, concise legal claims required by court rules. The judge characterized the document as largely echoing Trump’s longstanding public grievances against the publication rather than articulating a straightforward legal case. A person familiar with the court’s thinking said the expectation was that any refiled complaint would need to be “radically different” in tone and structure to be considered.

The New York Times, in a statement, called the lawsuit “meritless” and characterized it as an attempt to chill independent journalism. The paper has consistently stood by its reporting. Attempts to reach a spokesperson for Trump for comment on the dismissal were not immediately successful.

The dismissal underscores the formidable legal challenges public figures face in pursuing defamation claims in the United States, where the landmark 1964 Supreme Court ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan sets a high bar. Plaintiffs must prove not just that a published statement was false, but that it was made with “actual malice”—meaning with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

This lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of legal actions Trump has brought against media organizations, nearly all of which have been unsuccessful. The ability to refile means the matter is likely to continue, potentially prolonging legal costs and uncertainty for both parties, though many legal analysts see a final victory for Trump as a long shot. The judge’s order gives his legal team a defined period to submit a new, more focused complaint if they choose to proceed.