Randros 
In a scathing rebuke that underscores the limits of presidential power in the courtroom, U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday—a Republican appointee of former President George H.W. Bush—dismissed President Donald Trump’s explosive $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times on Friday.
He called the 85-page filing a “decidedly improper and impermissible” tirade unfit for federal court.
The judge lambasted the complaint as bloated with “vituperation and invective,” far exceeding the federal rules’ demand for a “short and plain statement” of claims, and granted Trump’s team just 28 days to refile a streamlined version capped at 40 pages.
The dismissal, handed down in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida—where Trump maintains his Mar-a-Lago residence—marks yet another early setback in the president’s escalating war on the press.
Filed late Monday in a flurry of bombastic language, the suit accused the Times of transforming into a “mouthpiece” for the Democratic Party, peddling “false and defamatory content” that allegedly tanked Trump’s “unique brand,” business interests, and even the MAGA movement itself.
Trump demanded no less than $15 billion in compensatory damages, claiming the coverage inflicted “enormous” economic harm ahead of his 2024 reelection victory.
A ‘Florid’ Assault on Journalism, Per the Filing
Trump’s lawyers zeroed in on four Times journalists: Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner, alongside Michael S. Schmidt and White House correspondent Peter Baker.
The complaint spotlighted three articles and a 2024 book, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, published by Penguin Random House and co-authored by Craig and Buettner.
The book, building on the duo’s prior reporting, dissected Trump’s financial empire, alleging it was propped up by inherited wealth and illusory success—claims the suit branded as malicious fabrications designed to “prejudice judges and juries” against him.
“The Times has betrayed the journalistic ideals of honesty, objectivity, and accuracy that it once professed,” the filing thundered, portraying the paper as “a leading, and unapologetic, purveyor of falsehoods against President Trump.”
It further alleged the coverage, laced with “actual malice,” sought to sabotage his campaign and devalue his media company’s stock.
In a Truth Social post announcing the suit, Trump fumed: “The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!”
The Times swiftly fired back, with a spokesperson declaring the lawsuit “has no merit” and represents a blatant bid “to stifle and discourage independent reporting.”
Penguin Random House echoed the sentiment, standing by the book’s rigorous fact-checking.
Judge Merryday’s Razor-Sharp Reprimand
Merryday’s 10-page order pulled no punches, likening the complaint to an overlong soapbox speech rather than a legal document.
“A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective or a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” he wrote, invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)’s mandate for brevity.
The judge derided the filing’s “abundant, florid, and enervating detail” as irrelevant bluster, consuming 85 pages for just two defamation counts—one against the Times and its reporters, the other against the publisher.
He likened the courtroom to neither “Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner” nor “a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” emphasizing that lawsuits must be “short, plain, [and] direct.”
While dismissing without prejudice—meaning Trump can amend and refile—Merryday warned against repeating the offense, imposing a strict 40-page limit and urging focus on facts over fury.
Legal experts hailed the ruling as a vital check on Trump’s litigious streak.
“This isn’t just a procedural slap—it’s a reminder that even presidents can’t weaponize the courts for vendettas,” said First Amendment advocate Floyd Abrams, who has defended media outlets in high-profile cases.
Trump’s Media Blitz
This isn’t Trump’s first rodeo with the Times or the press at large.
In 2021, as a private citizen, he sued the paper for $100 million over its Pulitzer-winning tax records series, alleging an “insidious plot” with his niece Mary Trump; a judge tossed it in 2023 as constitutionally barred.
Another 2020 bid against the Times over a Russia-related op-ed met a similar fate in 2021.
The current salvo fits a broader 2025 offensive.
Just months ago, Paramount Global settled a $20 billion suit for $16 million over alleged “deceptive editing” in a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris.
ABC News ponied up millions in another defamation dust-up.
Trump also slapped a $10 billion lawsuit on The Wall Street Journal last month over a report on a purported 2003 note to Jeffrey Epstein— a claim he denies—which the Journal tied to an Epstein birthday book.
“President Trump brings this suit to highlight… the era of unchecked, deliberate defamation by the Times and other legacy media outlets is over,” the NYT filing proclaimed, touting his “transcendent ability to defy wrongful conventions.”
Yet critics, including press freedom groups, decry the pattern as an authoritarian ploy to chill journalism, especially after Trump’s vows to “restore integrity” to a “corrupt” media landscape.
Trump’s team has until mid-October to overhaul the complaint.
Whether they’ll trim the rhetoric or double down remains to be seen—but for now, the judge’s gavel has silenced the president’s latest media megaphone.
Also Read: GOP Members Now Believe Trump Is Named First In The Epstein Files
For customer support or to report typos and corrections please get in contact via media@franknez.com.
About The Author
News Desk 
Frank Nez 