TrumpvNYT Dismissal 19 Sep 25
Uploaded by
XDL1TrumpvNYT Dismissal 19 Sep 25
Uploaded by
XDL1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
v. CASE NO. 8:25-cv-2487-SDM-NHA
NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a
New York corporation, et al.
_________________________________/
ORDER
As every member of the bar of every federal court knows (or is presumed to
know), Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that a complaint include
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to re-
lief.” Rule 8(e)(1) helpfully adds that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple,
concise, and direct.” Some pleadings are necessarily longer than others. The differ-
ence likely depends on the number of parties and claims, the complexity of the gov-
erning facts, and the duration and scope of pertinent events. But both a shorter plead-
ing and a longer pleading must comprise “simple, concise, and direct” allegations
that offer a “short and plain statement of the claim.” Rule 8 governs every pleading
in a federal court, regardless of the amount in controversy, the identity of the parties,
the skill or reputation of the counsel, the urgency or importance (real or imagined) of
the dispute, or any public interest at issue in the dispute.
In this action, a prominent American citizen (perhaps the most prominent
American citizen) alleges defamation by a prominent American newspaper publisher
(perhaps the most prominent American newspaper publisher) and by several other
corporate and natural persons. Alleging only two simple counts of defamation, the
complaint consumes eighty-five pages. Count I appears on page eighty, and Count II
appears on page eighty-three. Pages one through seventy-nine, plus part of page
eighty, present allegations common to both counts and to all defendants. Each count
alleges a claim against each defendant and, apparently, each claim seeks the same
remedy against each defendant.
Even under the most generous and lenient application of Rule 8, the com-
plaint is decidedly improper and impermissible. The pleader initially alleges an elec-
toral victory by President Trump “in historic fashion” — by “trouncing” the oppo-
nent — and alludes to “persistent election interference from the legacy media, led
most notoriously by the New York Times.” The pleader alludes to “the halcyon
days” of the newspaper but complains that the newspaper has become a “full-
throated mouthpiece of the Democrat party,” which allegedly resulted in the “de-
ranged endorsement” of President Trump’s principal opponent in the most recent
presidential election. The reader of the complaint must labor through allegations,
such as “a new journalistic low for the hopelessly compromised and tarnished ‘Gray
Lady.’” The reader must endure an allegation of “the desperate need to defame with
a partisan spear rather than report with an authentic looking glass” and an allegation
that “the false narrative about ‘The Apprentice’ was just the tip of Defendants’ melt-
ing iceberg of falsehoods.” Similarly, in one of many, often repetitive, and laudatory
(toward President Trump) but superfluous allegations, the pleader states, “‘The
-2-
Apprentice’ represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump’s singular bril-
liance, which captured the [Z]eitgeist of our time.”
The complaint continues with allegations in defense of President Trump’s fa-
ther and the acquisition of the Trumps’ wealth; with a protracted list of the many
properties owned, developed, or managed by The Trump Organization and a list of
President Trump’s many books; with a long account of the history of “The Appren-
tice”; with an extensive list of President Trump’s “media appearances”; with a de-
tailed account of other legal actions both by and against President Trump, including
an account of the “Russia Collusion Hoax” and incidents of alleged “lawfare”
against President Trump; and with much more, persistently alleged in abundant,
florid, and enervating detail.
Even assuming that each allegation in the complaint is true (of course, that is
for a jury to decide and is not pertinent here; this order suggests nothing about the
truth of the allegations or the validity of the claims but addresses only the manner of
the presentation of the allegations in the complaint); even assuming that at trial the
plaintiff offers evidence supporting every allegation in the complaint and that the evi-
dence is accepted by the jury as fact; and even assuming that after finally “melting”
the defendants’ alleged “iceberg of falsehoods” the plaintiff prevails for each reason
alleged in the complaint — even assuming all of that — a complaint remains an im-
proper and impermissible place for the tedious and burdensome aggregation of pro-
spective evidence, for the rehearsal of tendentious arguments, or for the protracted
recitation and explanation of legal authority putatively supporting the pleader’s claim
-3-
for relief. As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a pub-
lic forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an
adversary. 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.
A complaint is a mechanism to fairly, precisely, directly, soberly, and econom-
ically inform the defendants — in a professionally constrained manner consistent
with the dignity of the adversarial process in an Article III court of the United States
— of the nature and content of the claims. A complaint is a short, plain, direct state-
ment of allegations of fact sufficient to create a facially plausible claim for relief and
sufficient to permit the formulation of an informed response. Although lawyers re-
ceive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the com-
plaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.
This complaint stands unmistakably and inexcusably athwart the requirements
of Rule 8. This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules
of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner. The complaint is STRUCK
with leave to amend within twenty-eight days. The amended complaint must not ex-
ceed forty pages, excluding only the caption, the signature, and any attachment.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 19, 2025.
-4-
