SLAPPing Down the First Amendment: Trump’s $15 Billion Lawsuit Against the Times

Donald Trump speaking to supporters at an immigration policy speech at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

On Sept. 15, President Donald Trump filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. The suit accused the Times, as well as four highly regarded journalists — Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner, Peter Baker and Michael S. Schmidt — of disparagement. 

The lawsuit also came in response to a book written by Buettner and Craig entitled “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success,” published by Penguin Random House, a publishing company also listed as a defendant. Trump claimed the writing deteriorated his reputation and undermined his history of fame. 

Just days after Trump filed the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Steve Merryday dismissed it, not on the merits, but because of the language used throughout the statement. Merryday called the 85-paged complaint “vituperation and invective.” In other words, he said the language was emotional and lacked concision. 

Despite the rejection, the case is not over, as Trump was given 28 days to revise his complaint in a manner that addresses these procedural deficiencies. If the complaint is kept under 40 pages and is deemed “professional and dignified,” the case can move forward.  

The case is categorized as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. A SLAPP is a weak lawsuit that imposes high legal costs meant to intimidate or silence critics. The threat of suing $15 billion and the strongly worded nature of the complaint reflect this dynamic. Most states have anti-SLAPP laws that protect such actions against free speech. Typically, they are state-level protections and are filed in the state court. 

Florida's law, where Trump filed the lawsuit, is unique in that anti-SLAPP laws apply to federal court as well. This means the Times could move to dismiss the case quicker and possibly recover attorney fees. Experts noted that, although SLAPP lawsuits aren’t likely to prevail, they serve a more strategic purpose in stifling First Amendment rights for news sources. “Weak” lawsuits drain resources, consume time and send a warning shot to other journalists and media outlets that could potentially suffer the legal costs of a prolonged battle. 

Recently, the future of free speech has spurred conversation and debate. A political landscape that once centered on government censorship and protest rights has shifted to powerful figures increasingly using defamation suits to challenge unfavorable coverage. 

According to a recent survey conducted by UNESCO, 68% of judicial actors confirmed that SLAPP lawsuits are strategic and therefore “increasingly innovative and rapidly evolving.” Similarly, Trump has tied the number of lawsuit involvements in mid-2025 compared to the year 2024. This record wave of litigation has escalated from public criticism to significant legal battles that threaten the future of major news organizations. 

Trump’s case is only one example of the broader phenomenon — defamation lawsuits are on the rise. A 2023 report by the American Bar Association Journal notes several distinguishing trends in such cases. The report says the trends include, “forum shopping, having an increasingly political component, adding allegations unrelated to the defamation claim, increasingly naming individual reporters as defendants and demanding huge damage awards." The aggressive nature of the evolution of defamation lawsuits reflects the current battle American citizens are undergoing for First Amendment rights. By naming reporters individually or demanding massive damages, experts concluded that retaliative efforts will decrease significantly and censorship will take over. 

At its core, Trump’s current legal battle goes beyond a lawsuit and begs the question of whether free speech remains a safeguard of democracy or becomes susceptible to the threats of legal action. The outcome of cases like Trump’s will help determine and redefine whether media outlets can continue publishing controversial or critical content for fear of litigation. If lawsuits become routine weapons for litigation, the legal system risks being transformed from a forum for justice into an intimidation tactic. In the end, what is truly on trial is not the Times, but the future of free speech in America.