On Friday, September 19, 2025, a federal judge in Tampa, Florida, delivered a stinging rebuke to former President Donald Trump, dismissing his $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday, was as much a critique of legal decorum as it was a procedural ruling—underscoring the judiciary’s expectation that even the most high-profile litigants must adhere to the rules of civil procedure.
Trump’s lawsuit, which also targeted four New York Times reporters and the publisher Penguin Random House, was thrown out as “decidedly improper and impermissible.” According to Merryday, the complaint was “too long and burdensome,” clocking in at a sprawling 85 pages. Rather than focusing on the legal claims, the filing was replete with “superfluous allegations,” effusive praise for Trump’s business and political accomplishments, and pointed attacks on his critics.
“As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective—not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” wrote Merryday in his sharply worded order, as reported by CNBC and the Associated Press. “A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.”
The judge, who was appointed to the bench by former President George H.W. Bush, did not close the door entirely on Trump’s legal effort. Instead, he gave Trump and his legal team 28 days to refile an amended complaint that is “professional and dignified,” and—importantly—no longer than 40 pages, excluding the caption, signature, and any attachments. “This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner,” Merryday wrote.
The original lawsuit was filed only days earlier, on Monday, and accused The New York Times of being a “mouthpiece” for the Democratic Party. Trump’s lawyers argued that the newspaper, its reporters, and Penguin Random House had defamed him through three articles and a book—Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success—allegedly to sabotage his 2024 presidential campaign and tarnish his image as a successful businessman.
The complaint was not subtle in its rhetoric. At one point, it claimed the defendants “baselessly hate President Trump in a deranged way,” and described their actions as “a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished ‘Gray Lady’,” invoking the Times’ famous nickname. It even accused the Times of being “deranged” for endorsing Democrat Kamala Harris for president. These flourishes, Merryday made clear, were far from appropriate in a legal document. “Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client,” he wrote, “the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.”
According to Reuters, Merryday also criticized the inclusion of a lengthy defense of Trump’s late father, Fred Trump, and the overall tone of self-congratulation throughout the document. The judge emphasized that legal complaints must “fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and economically” set out the reasons for suing, not serve as a platform for personal grievances or political theater.
Trump, never one to shy away from the spotlight, responded to the news with characteristic bravado. During an Oval Office event, after ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl pointed out the dismissal, Trump declared, “I’m winning, I’m winning the cases.” He then pivoted to attack Karl and the network: “You’re guilty, Jon, you’re guilty. ABC is a terrible network, a very unfair network, and you should be ashamed of yourself. NBC is equally bad. I don’t know who’s worse.”
Trump’s legal team remained defiant in the face of the setback. In a statement to CNBC, a spokesperson said, “President Trump will continue to hold the Fake News accountable through this powerhouse lawsuit against the New York Times, its reporters, and Penguin Random House, in accordance with the judge’s direction on logistics.”
The defendants, meanwhile, welcomed the judge’s decision. A spokesperson for The New York Times told the press, “We welcome the judge’s quick ruling, which recognized that the complaint was a political document rather than a serious legal filing.” Penguin Random House also applauded the dismissal, citing the judge’s characterization of the complaint as “improper and impermissible.”
The legal spat is just the latest chapter in Trump’s ongoing battle with the media—a campaign he has waged both in the court of public opinion and in actual courts. The former president has frequently turned to litigation as a tool to challenge reporting and commentary he deems unfair or damaging. In addition to the suit against the Times and Penguin Random House, Trump is currently pursuing a $10 billion defamation case against Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal over an article involving a birthday greeting sent to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. Some of the same lawyers involved in the Times case are representing him in that suit as well. Notably, Trump’s legal team recently secured a $16 million settlement with Paramount Global, CBS News’ parent company, over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris.
Legal experts say Merryday’s order is a rare and pointed admonition of a former president’s conduct in the judicial process. Federal judges typically exercise restraint in their criticism, but in this instance, Merryday’s four-page order was a clear signal that the rules of procedure apply to all, regardless of their political stature or celebrity. The judge’s insistence on a “short and plain statement” of the claim reflects a bedrock principle of American civil litigation—one designed to keep the courts focused on the facts and the law, not on political grandstanding or personal attacks.
For now, the ball is back in Trump’s court. He has until mid-October to submit his revised complaint, stripped of the rhetorical excesses that doomed the first attempt. Whether the amended lawsuit will fare any better remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: in Judge Merryday’s courtroom, legal arguments—not political theater—will carry the day.
As the legal drama continues to unfold, all eyes will be on Trump’s next move—and whether his legal team can craft a complaint that meets the judge’s exacting standards, or if the case will ultimately be consigned to the growing list of failed efforts to rein in the press through the courts.