Fact-check
Trump's NYT "Victory" Post: A Deferral Is Not a Denial
Judge Merryday did not deny the NYT's motion to dismiss — he deferred it, ordering a third version of Trump's complaint by August 27. Trump's post frames this judicial punt as a decisive win…
By The Crosscheck Desk · 2026-07-28
BREAKING NEWS: The Failing New York Times, after 10 years of harassment, slander, and libel, just failed again in their desperate attempt to have our powerful Defamation Lawsuit against them dropped. As we requested, the Highly Respected Judge has called for an updated complaint, which will lay out, in extreme detail, all the ways in which The Times has repeatedly and consistently acted, with actual malice in defaming me, my family, our Great MAGA Movement, and America, itself.
Judge Merryday did not dismiss the $15 billion defamation suit, but he did not deny the motion either. He deferred it — requiring Trump to file a third version of the complaint by August 27. That is the ruling Trump is calling a defeat for the New York Times.
The Post
What the Ruling Actually Says
On July 27, 2026, Judge Steven D. Merryday of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida signed an order in Trump v. New York Times Company (Case No. 8:25-cv-02487). The New York Times had filed a motion to dismiss Trump's $15 billion defamation complaint. Merryday did not grant that motion. He also did not deny it.[1]
He deferred it.
The order requires Trump's legal team to file a second amended complaint by August 27, 2026. The Times then has three weeks (approximately September 17) to file a "succinct" response. Only after that will Merryday rule on whether the case proceeds.[2]
This is not an unusual procedural move when a judge wants a cleaner complaint before deciding a dispositive motion, but it is neither a victory for Trump nor a defeat for the Times. The motion to dismiss remains live. The case's survival is not assured.
Claim-by-Claim Assessment
| Claim | Verdict |
|---|---|
| "NYT just failed again in their desperate attempt to have our powerful Defamation Lawsuit against them dropped" | Misleading |
| "As we requested, the Highly Respected Judge has called for an updated complaint" | Misleading |
| "after 10 years of harassment, slander, and libel" | Misleading |
| The lawsuit was not dismissed; an amended complaint is coming | True |
Claim 1: NYT "failed again"
This is the load-bearing characterization of the post. It implies the Times tried to kill the lawsuit and lost. What happened is narrower: the judge deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss and ordered another amended complaint. The Times' motion is still pending. After Trump files by August 27 and the Times responds, Merryday will decide. The Times could still win on the motion.[1][2]
The "again" also deserves scrutiny. This is Trump's second amended complaint — the original 85-page filing was tossed by the same judge in September 2025 as "decidedly improper and impermissible," before the Times ever had to file a motion to dismiss.[5] The October 2025 refiling was the version the Times moved against. The Times has not lost any motion in this case.
Claim 2: "As we requested"
No reporting from any outlet covering the ruling (Forbes, The Wrap, Fox News, CNN) mentions Trump's legal team requesting an amended complaint rather than a ruling on the motion.[1][2][3] The judge's order "did not elaborate on why the suit needed to be revised before his ruling," per Forbes. The order appears to be the judge's own initiative, not a response to a request from Trump. Claiming credit for a procedural order that was not requested is unsupported.
Claim 3: "10 years"
The current lawsuit was filed September 15, 2025 — ten months before the post, not ten years.[6] The alleged defamatory conduct the complaint targets is the "Lucky Loser" book (published September 2024) and three articles published before the 2024 election, covering roughly one to two years of coverage.[8]
Trump's broadest plausible reading: count from October 2016, when the Times first published partial Trump tax returns showing a $916 million loss — approximately ten years before the post. A separate lawsuit filed in 2021 over the Times' Pulitzer-winning 2018 tax records investigation was also filed, but the Times-related claims in that case were dismissed in 2023, and the associated suit against niece Mary Trump was settled in June 2026.[4] Even accepting the 2016 start date, calling a decade of journalism "harassment, slander, and libel" presupposes the defamation claim is valid — a matter still before the court.
The Better Question
The post frames the ruling as: did the Times fail to kill Trump's lawsuit? The more useful question for readers is: does this lawsuit have any realistic chance of winning?
Public figures must clear a high bar in U.S. defamation law. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), a public figure can only prevail by proving the defendant published a false statement with "actual malice" — meaning the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.[9] When the same judge dismissed Trump's original 85-page complaint, he explicitly noted that the filing conflated actual malice with the allegation that the Times was driven by political animus, which are legally distinct concepts.
Trump's post says the amended complaint "will lay out, in extreme detail, all the ways in which The Times has repeatedly and consistently acted, with actual malice." But earlier Merryday rulings required the complaint to be more concise, not more detailed. The original was rejected for being too long and diffuse. The new order allows the amended complaint to exceed the previous 40-page limit, but only insofar as it contains "factual allegations consistent with applicable rules." The standard is still Rule 8: simple, concise, and direct claims.
Context from parallel litigation: Trump's $3 billion defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal was dismissed in April 2026 by a federal judge on similar grounds — that the complaint failed to adequately plead actual malice for a public figure plaintiff.[10] The pattern suggests the legal standard is proving difficult to meet.
How This Lawsuit Got Here
The Times' Position
When the suit was filed in September 2025, the Times responded immediately: "This lawsuit has no merit. It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists' First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people."[4]
The Times' strongest legal arguments center on two foundations. First, "Lucky Loser" and the cited articles are based on documented financial records and extensive reporting; the actual malice standard requires the Times to have known the reporting was false at the time, not merely that Trump disputes it. Second, courts have consistently held that opinion and characterization — including the book's framing of Trump's business record as built on his father's fortune — receive First Amendment protection even when the subject disputes the characterization vigorously.
The case for Trump's lawsuit: public figures are not without defamation remedies, and if Trump's attorneys can plead specific false statements of fact (not opinion) with specific evidence of the reporters' subjective awareness of their falsity, the claim is not inherently impossible. Merryday's willingness to allow a third version of the complaint, rather than dismissing outright, could signal he sees a potentially viable claim buried beneath the pleading deficiencies. Media law scholars differ on whether the "Lucky Loser" book's core thesis — that Trump's business record was exaggerated — constitutes defamatory false fact or protected opinion.
What to Watch
- August 27, 2026: Deadline for Trump's second amended complaint. The legal theory and specific allegations it contains will determine whether the case can survive a renewed motion to dismiss.
- ~September 17, 2026: The Times' "succinct" response is due three weeks after the amended complaint. Expect another motion to dismiss.
- Ruling on the motion to dismiss: If Merryday grants it, the case is over (subject to appeal). If he denies it, the case enters discovery — a phase that would compel the Times to produce internal communications and documentation, which carries its own news value and litigation costs regardless of the ultimate outcome.
- Actual malice pleading: Watch whether the amended complaint cites specific internal Times communications, source interactions, or editorial decisions as evidence of knowing falsity. Without concrete pleading on that point, dismissal remains the likeliest outcome under Sullivan.
- Pattern with other Trump media suits: The Wall Street Journal lawsuit was dismissed in April 2026. Trump also has suits pending against the BBC and others. The outcomes of those cases will shape the legal landscape for this one.
Sources
- Judge Doesn't Toss Trump's $15 Billion New York Times Lawsuit, But It Must Be Amended
- Judge Declines to Dismiss Trump's $15 Billion Suit Against New York Times, Orders Amended Complaint
- Trump Allowed to Amend New York Times Defamation Lawsuit by Judge
- NY Times Defends Reporting Against Trump's Defamation Claims
- Judge Rejects Trump's New York Times Lawsuit for Being 'Decidedly Improper and Impermissible'
- Judge Dismisses Trump's $15 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Against NYT
- Trump v. New York Times Company — Case No. 8:25-cv-02487 (M.D. Fla.)
- The Latest Trump-NYT Defamation Suit Is to Silence Speech, Not Make Journalism Better
- Judge Tosses Trump's $15B Defamation Suit Against New York Times, Penguin Random House
- A Federal Judge Dismisses Trump's Defamation Lawsuit Against the Wall Street Journal
- Donald Trump Settles Lawsuit Against Niece Over Publication of Tax Records
