President Donald Trump is suing The New York Times, and this time he’s not holding back. We’re talking $15 billion. With a “B.” And judging by the language in his Truth Social post, this isn’t just another legal skirmish. This is a full-blown war against what he calls one of the “most degenerate newspapers in the history of our country.” Ouch.
NYT thought they could trash Trump with fake stories. Now they’re facing a $15B smackdown! pic.twitter.com/DJbdXCd1AV
— End3of6Days9 (Helen) 🇺🇸 (@end3of6days9) September 16, 2025
Naturally, the Times fired back with the expected eye-roll of a statement, calling the lawsuit “meritless” and an “intimidation tactic.” Because of course they did. Nothing screams “independent journalism” quite like a major media outlet pretending they haven’t spent the last decade running a 24/7 negative PR campaign against the man. But hey, we’re supposed to believe they’re neutral arbiters of truth—just some humble reporters asking hard questions, right?
I can’t wait to see the NYT pay President Trump lots of money. Cry harder. https://t.co/KsBQtTTeSV
— Katie Miller (@KatieMiller) September 16, 2025
Let’s not pretend we don’t all see what’s going on here. The New York Times has been a de facto communications arm of the Democratic Party since Eisenhower was in office. Their editorial board hasn’t endorsed a Republican for president since 1956, but somehow, we’re expected to take their Kamala Harris endorsement as just another “informed opinion.” Right. Trump didn’t just say they were biased—he’s arguing in court that their coverage was effectively a massive, in-kind campaign donation. And honestly? It’s not the wildest take.
Remember, this is the same Times that published the “Trump paid $750 in taxes” headline, based on leaked tax records, then turned around and acted like Julian Assange was a national threat for publishing government leaks. Their commitment to transparency is wildly selective. Now they’ve gone a step further, putting out a book—Lucky Loser—authored by two of their own reporters, meant to paint Trump as some bumbling con man who tripped over daddy’s money. Apparently the Pulitzer for creative nonfiction is just handed out now for partisan hit jobs.
But what really makes the Times clutch their pearls? The fact that Trump’s legal team is winning. ABC News shelled out $15 million. CBS, facing a merger and some not-so-flattering “60 Minutes” editing accusations, threw an estimated $30 million at Trump just to make him go away. That’s not pocket change, and it sure doesn’t scream “frivolous lawsuit.” If anything, it says these outlets knew exactly how far over the line they went.
Let’s not forget Stephanopoulos—he of Clinton White House fame—got caught parroting a claim on air that Trump had been held liable for rape, when the actual court decision was for sexual abuse. There’s a Grand Canyon of legal difference there, but sure, “just a mistake,” right George? Meanwhile, try flipping that around: imagine a conservative anchor misstating a Democrat’s legal outcome. The apology tour would never end.
The media meltdown over these lawsuits is almost as entertaining as the lawsuits themselves. The howls about the First Amendment, the desperate editorials claiming democracy will collapse if The New York Times is held accountable for anything—it’s a drama only rivaled by the Harris campaign itself, which, to be fair, needs all the free press it can get. Because if she had to earn attention on her own merit, we’d all be Googling “Kamala Harris approval rating” in disbelief again.
Here’s the part the corporate media really hates: Trump is calling their bluff. For years, they’ve hidden behind the label of “journalism” while churning out glorified campaign ads for Democrats. They frame, distort, omit, and editorialize, and when someone pushes back, they cry censorship. But they’re not untouchable. And when Trump comes at them with a team of lawyers and a very public spotlight, suddenly the high-minded defenders of the Fourth Estate are dialing their legal departments in a panic.
The New York Times says they won’t be deterred. That’s cute. But if they’re so confident in their reporting, they might want to prepare for discovery. Because something tells me they’re not too eager to open up those editorial Slack messages or email chains. You know, the ones that could make for some real must-read journalism—just not the kind they like to print.
