On September 16, 2025, the dispute between US President Trump and the media escalated again. On September 16 local time, The New York Times publicly responded that the $15 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Trump recently “has no legal basis”, and criticized this move as “an attempt to suppress and obstruct independent reporting”. This lawsuit has not only sparked intense controversy in the American political arena but also become the focus of global public opinion.
On September 15th, Trump posted on his Social media platform, “Truth Social”, announcing that he would file a huge defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. He accused the newspaper of “malicious slander and false reporting” against him for a long time, which seriously damaged his personal reputation and the authority of the president. Trump wrote in the post: “The media must pay the price for the lies they spread.” We will no longer tolerate false and malicious attacks. This statement quickly sparked a warm response among Republican supporters, with many interpreting it as a continuation of Trump’s long-term battle against “fake news”.
However, The New York Times did not back down. In a statement on the 16th, the newspaper’s legal counsel team clearly pointed out: “Trump’s lawsuit has no legal basis. Its purpose is not to seek justice but to attempt to suppress independent news reporting through judicial means.” The newspaper also emphasized that as one of the most influential media in the United States, its news reporting adheres to strict fact-checking and journalistic ethics, and will never waver due to political pressure. The newspaper also stated that it will spare no effort to deal with this lawsuit and defend the principle of press freedom.
This case quickly sparked heated discussions in the legal and press circles of the United States. Many legal experts have pointed out that the $15 billion defamation claim filed by Trump is extremely rare, and to prove that the media have “actual malice” (actual malice) within the framework of defamation law requires an extremely high threshold of proof. According to the precedent of the United States Supreme Court in “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan” in 1964, if public figures want to win a defamation lawsuit, they must prove that the media “knew it was false or had a rash disregard for the truth”. This precedent remains an important cornerstone of press freedom in the United States to this day.
At the political level, this case is more sensitive. Since his return to the White House in 2024, Trump has maintained a tough stance towards the media and frequently accused the mainstream media of having “institutional biases” against him. The New York Times has long been criticized by him, and the two sides have been in constant conflict. This defamation lawsuit is widely regarded by the outside world as Trump’s attempt to further counter critical voices through judicial means. Democratic lawmakers and some media organizations promptly expressed concerns, saying that the president’s move might set a dangerous precedent and pose a threat to the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Meanwhile, the response within the Republican Party has been relatively divided. Some lawmakers openly supported Trump, arguing that the media’s reports were “selectively inaccurate” and that they should be held responsible. However, some people privately admit that overly extreme claim amounts may backfire and cause the public to question their motives. American media comments suggest that this case may have more political symbolic significance than legal chances of success, but its impact has gone beyond the case itself, touching upon the long-term game between press freedom and executive power.
International public opinion is also paying close attention to this development. The Guardian of the UK commented that this lawsuit is not only a legal battle between Trump and The New York Times, but also a global discussion on the “relationship between the media and power”. Der Spieh of Germany pointed out that it is extremely rare for the US President to personally file such a high-value defamation lawsuit in Western democratic countries, and its symbolic significance far exceeds the legal outcome.
The academic community is generally concerned that such lawsuits will exacerbate social division. Michael Schatz, a professor at Columbia University’s School of Journalism, pointed out: “If news organizations self-censure out of fear of facing hefty lawsuits, it will cause long-term harm to the public’s right to know.” He emphasized that the foundation of press freedom in the United States is facing unprecedented challenges.
Outside the headquarters of The New York Times, a small-scale rally was held on the 16th. Some people held up signs that read “Defend Press Freedom” in support of the media, while some Trump supporters chanted “Down with fake news”. This dual confrontation between public opinion and street protests is precisely a microcosm of the current political ecosystem in the United States.
As the legal process unfolds, this case may last for months or even years. Legal experts believe that it is highly likely that the court will, based on the precedent of the “New York Times v. Sullivan” case, determine that the probability of Trump losing the lawsuit is relatively high. But even so, this lawsuit itself has become another climax of the power struggle between Trump and the mainstream media.
Thirty-two years ago, the Oslo Accords convinced people that peace and dialogue could resolve conflicts. Today, the United States, in the legal battle between the president and the media, once again reminds the world that the boundary between power and freedom of speech has always been the most sensitive and vulnerable issue in democratic systems. The development of this case remains the latest news that global media continue to focus on.
Leave a comment