Benjamin Netanyahu:“This is an absolute lie…”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has filed a defamation lawsuit against Haaretz (הָאָרֶץ), one of the country’s leading newspapers, after it claimed that he had received and ignored an advance warning about the 7th October 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks. Haaretz reported that United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan had informed Netanyahu of an impending Hamas operation in a telephone call at the end of September 2023, and that Netanyahu told none of his security or military officials about the conversation.

The severely damaging allegation appeared in the newspaper’s Hebrew edition on 8th September, and in its English edition today, in a report written by Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval adapted from their forthcoming book חטופים — 843 ימים של הפקרה (‘hostages — 843 days of abandonment’). The article included a categorical denial by Netanyahu (“This is an absolute lie”), though it was based on multiple sources and its central allegation has not been refuted by the UAE.

There have been previous claims that Netanyahu ignored intelligence reports about potential unspecified Hamas operations, though the allegation in Haaretz is more damning, as it accuses him of disregarding and concealing a specific warning less than two weeks before the attack took place. Netanyahu is also on trial for corruption, with his next court appearance scheduled for April 2027.

The New York Times

A college basketball player has been awarded $9.25 million in damages against The New York Times, after winning a defamation case against the newspaper on 20th August. Kai Spears had filed the libel suit after the NYT wrongly alleged that he was a passenger in a car linked to a fatal shooting.

In the article — headlined “On Eve of Tournament, Fourth Alabama Player Is Placed at Shooting” and published on 16th March 2023 (p. B7) — Billy Witz wrote that the occupants of a car at the crime scene included “Kai Spears, a freshman walk-on whose presence at the scene had not previously been reported.” This is the first libel case the NYT has lost in more than fifty years.

Panorama

UK parcel delivery company Evri is suing the BBC for libel and seeking £1.2 million in damages. That amount represents the lost business that the firm claims it has suffered as a result of the Panorama documentary Evri: Where’s My Parcel?

Panorama reporter Zoe Conway interviewed Evri couriers, who complained that the company reduced its per-parcel payment rate to the extent that “they couldn’t make a living if the accepted the pay cut.” The programme was broadcast on 15th December 2025 on BBC1, and repeated five days later on BBC2, and is still available on the BBC’s iPlayer streaming service.

In its lawsuit, filed at the High Court in London, Evri stated that Panorama falsely accused the company of “exploitative business practices designed to reduce pay for its couriers, with the result that they are regularly unlawfully paid less than the national minimum wage”. It is also seeking an injunction to prevent the BBC from repeating or streaming the programme in future.

Donald Trump v. The Wall Street Journal

Donald Trump has refiled his defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal. He originally sued the newspaper last July after it reported that he had sent child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a salacious letter on Epstein’s fiftieth birthday.

The case was initially dismissed last month, and Southern District of Florida judge Darrin P. Gayles made it very clear that Trump had failed to establish that the Journal had acted with ‘actual malice’, the legal standard required for defamation cases filed by public figures in the US. Gayles wrote: “The Complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite.”

In a front-page story published (in late editions) on 18th July 2025, the newspaper quoted Trump’s birthday greeting to Epstein: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

The text was enclosed within a drawing of the outline of a nude woman, and Trump signed the letter in the position where the woman’s pubic hair would be. A thick marker pen, Trump’s preferred type, was used for the drawing and signature. The letter was part of an album compiled in 2003 by Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell — who is also a child sex offender — containing letters and cards from Epstein’s friends, including Trump.

Trump was a close associate of Epstein’s who attempted to distance himself once Epstein’s crimes were revealed. The WSJ article — written by Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, and headlined “Trump’s Bawdy Letter to Epstein Was in 50th Birthday Album” — included denials by Trump, and quoted him as saying: “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else”.

Safdar and Palazzolo were named in Trump’s lawsuit, as was media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the proprietor of the WSJ. Trump posted on Truth Social on 18th July 2025: “I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But now he has, and I’m going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper.” His lawsuit sought $10 billion in damages for defamation per se, and a further $10 billion for defamation per quod (that is, implicit defamation).

A copy of the letter was released by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on 8th September 2025, and the newspaper cited this as clear evidence that its story was true. When he dismissed the case last month, the judge noted that the letter described by the Journal and the copy released by the committee “appear identical”, though he did not make a judgement about the accuracy of the newspaper’s reporting. In his lawsuit filed today, Trump’s lawyers argue that “no authentic letter or drawing exists.”

Murdoch has a chequered history with Trump, as does the Journal. In an editorial at the beginning of last year, the newspaper called Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada “The Dumbest Trade War in History”. Murdoch was quoted calling Trump a “fucking idiot” in Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury.

Trump’s lawsuit against the WSJ was the first time that a sitting American president had ever sued a media organisation. He has subsequently filed a lawsuit against The New York Times and the authors of Lucky Loser, and he sued the BBC after Panorama edited one of his speeches.

Trump has sued numerous other media figures and news organisations over the years as a private citizen, including Bill Maher and CNN. He sued Bob Woodward for copyright infringement, though that case was dismissed. His lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll was also dismissed. His unsuccessful lawsuit against Timothy L. O’Brien’s book TrumpNation sought $5 billion in damages.

Trump has never won a libel case in court, though he has received settlements in two cases. ABC settled after he sued them in 2024. He sued CBS later that year, and they also agreed to an out-of-court settlement.

Occasionally, Trump has filed defamation suits indirectly via his organisations or relatives. His brother sued their niece, Mary Trump, in 2020, though the case was dismissed. A suit filed against the NYT by his presidential campaign also failed. His wife won undisclosed damages from The Daily Telegraph in 2019, and she was awarded $3 million in damages from the Daily Mail in 2017.

Kash Patel: “I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook...”

FBI director Kash Patel filed a defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic today, seeking $250 million in damages. An article by Sarah Fitzpatrick, published online on 17th April, claims that “Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.”

The article, headlined “The FBI Director Is MIA”, includes a denial from Patel, who told the magazine: “Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court — bring your checkbook.” Patel’s lawsuit describes the article as a “malicious and defamatory hit piece” though Fitzpatrick’s reporting is based on conversations — albeit off-the-record — with six current and former FBI officials.

Donald Trump v. The Wall Street Journal

Donald Trump’s $20 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal has been dismissed by a US District Court. In a written judgement published today, Southern District of Florida judge Darrin P. Gayles made it very clear that Trump had failed to establish that the Journal had acted with ‘actual malice’, the legal standard required for defamation cases filed by public figures in the US. Gayles wrote: “The Complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite.”

Last year, the Journal, reported that Trump had sent child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a salacious letter on Epstein’s fiftieth birthday. In a front-page story published (in late editions) on 18th July 2025, the newspaper quoted Trump’s birthday greeting to Epstein: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

The text was enclosed within a drawing of the outline of a nude woman, and Trump signed the letter in the position where the woman’s pubic hair would be. A thick marker pen, Trump’s preferred type, was used for the drawing and signature. The letter was part of an album compiled in 2003 by Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell — who is also a child sex offender — containing letters and cards from Epstein’s friends, including Trump.

Trump was a close associate of Epstein’s who attempted to distance himself once Epstein’s crimes were revealed. The WSJ article — written by Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, and headlined “Trump’s Bawdy Letter to Epstein Was in 50th Birthday Album” — included denials by Trump, and quoted him as saying: “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else”.

Safdar and Palazzolo were named in Trump’s lawsuit, as was media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the proprietor of the WSJ. Trump posted on Truth Social on 18th July 2025: “I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But now he has, and I’m going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper.” His lawsuit sought $10 billion in damages for defamation per se, and a further $10 billion for defamation per quod (that is, implicit defamation).

A copy of the letter was released by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on 8th September 2025, and the newspaper cited this as clear evidence that its story was true. In today’s ruling, the judge noted that the letter described by the Journal and the copy released by the committee “appear identical”, though he did not make a judgement about the accuracy of the newspaper’s reporting: “Whether Trump was the author of the Letter or Epstein’s friend are questions of fact that cannot be determined at this stage of the litigation.”

Murdoch has a chequered history with Trump, as does the Journal. In an editorial at the beginning of last year, the newspaper called Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada “The Dumbest Trade War in History”. Murdoch was quoted calling Trump a “fucking idiot” in Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury.

Trump’s lawsuit against the WSJ was the first time that a sitting American president had ever sued a media organisation. He has subsequently filed a lawsuit against The New York Times and the authors of Lucky Loser, and he sued the BBC after Panorama edited one of his speeches.

Trump has sued numerous other media figures and news organisations over the years as a private citizen, including Bill Maher and CNN. He sued Bob Woodward for copyright infringement, though that case was dismissed. His lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll was also dismissed. His unsuccessful lawsuit against Timothy L. O’Brien’s book TrumpNation sought $5 billion in damages.

Trump has never won a libel case in court, though he has received settlements in two cases. ABC settled after he sued them in 2024. He sued CBS later that year, and they also agreed to an out-of-court settlement.

Occasionally, Trump has filed defamation suits indirectly via his organisations or relatives. His brother sued their niece, Mary Trump, in 2020, though the case was dismissed. A suit filed against the NYT by his presidential campaign also failed. His wife won undisclosed damages from The Daily Telegraph in 2019, and she was awarded $3 million in damages from the Daily Mail in 2017.

“A vindication for investigative journalism...”

Hedge fund manager Crispin Odey has withdrawn his defamation lawsuit against the Financial Times newspaper, almost three years after it accused him of sexually assaulting and harassing more than a dozen women who had worked with him. Odey’s libel suit was filed at the High Court in London in 2024. FT editor Roula Khalaf’s reaction to the collapse of the case is quoted in today’s issue: “This is a vindication for investigative journalism and for the victims whose stories of abuse we reported”.

The FT published its investigation into Odey on 10th June 2023, as the cover story of its FT Weekend Magazine supplement (no. 1,026). The magazine’s stark headline read: “Crispin Odey has got away with assaulting and harassing women for 25 years”. The article, titled “THE GAMBLER” (pp. 18–25), was written by Madison Marriage, Antonia Cundy, and Paul Caruana Galizia.

The Stringer

Photojournalist Nick Út has filed a defamation lawsuit in France against Netflix and Gary Knight, producer of The Stringer. The documentary, directed by Bao Nguyen, alleged that The Terror of War, a famous photograph of a young girl, naked and screaming in pain after a napalm attack during the Vietnam War, was taken by Nguyen Thanh Nghe and not by Út.

The photo has been credited to Út ever since it was first published in 1972, though the documentary’s evidence to the contrary is compelling. The film relies heavily on the word of a single Associated Press whistle-blower, though digital mapping of the landscape at the moment the picture was taken places Út too far away from Kim Phúc, the girl in the photo.

Donald Trump:“The BBC intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers...”

President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the BBC, seeking $10 billion in damages. In a submission to the US District Court in the Southern District of Florida filed yesterday, Trump’s legal team argue that “the BBC intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world”.

Trump had previously threatened to sue the BBC for $1 billion, after it broadcast an episode of its long-running documentary series Panorama that edited one of his speeches in a misleading way. Last month, a letter from Trump’s lawyer accused the BBC of making “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements” in the programme.

The Panorama episode, Trump: A Second Chance?, featured an extract from a speech Trump gave on the morning of 6th January 2021, the day of the attempted insurrection by Trump supporters at the US Capitol building in Washington. At an early point in the speech, Trump said: “we’re gonna walk down, and I’ll be there with you... We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” The speech continued for almost an hour, and in the final passages Trump’s tone became more combative: “And we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

However, Panorama edited three soundbites from the speech together seamlessly, making Trump appear to say: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, / and I’ll be there with you / And we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.” This went beyond the usual editing for brevity and clarity, as it changed the sequence of his words and spliced together lines that were delivered almost an hour apart. But it did not fundamentally alter the meaning of Trump’s speech, as he was impeached for inciting violence at the Capitol.

The episode was broadcast in the UK twice last year: on BBC1 on 28th October, and repeated on BBC2 on 2nd November. But it was not broadcast or streamed by any of the BBC’s American TV services. It was available via the BBC iPlayer for a year after its first broadcast, though that service is geoblocked outside the UK.

To prove to a Flordia court that he was defamed by Panorama, Trump must first establish that the programme was viewed by Floridians. His lawsuit makes the rather weak argument that, due to the increased usage of VPN software, there is an “immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary”, though there is no evidence that any VPN users in the state actually watched it. Regardless, the BBC could certainly argue that it takes all reasonable precautions to ensure that the iPlayer is not accessible outside the UK.

Trump’s lawsuit also cites the Canadian media company Blue Ant, which had a licence to distribute Panorama internationally. But Blue Ant did not sell the episode in question to any American broadcasters, and in any case, the international version of the episode was edited to allow time for commercial breaks, and the Trump speech was one of the sections cut from this shorter version.

The lawsuit describes Panorama’s editing of Trump’s speech as “an intentional and malicious effort to falsely and deceptively portray President Trump as having called for violent action”. The BBC has already issued a public apology, saying on 13th November that the edit “gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action”. The key distinction here is between “intentional” and “mistaken”, as US defamation law requires evidence of deliberate intent to mislead. But the Panorama episode featured extensive interviews with Trump supporters, and was by no means the hatchet job that the lawsuit describes.

Trump is seeking $5 billion in damages for defamation, and an additional $5 billion for alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. (The FDUTPA is a consumer protection law, and seems to have no relevance to the Panorama episode.) The lawsuit ends by requesting a jury trial, which may be the most significant aspect of the filing: a jury in Florida — a Republican state — would likely be dominated by Trump voters, which might therefore influence the verdict.

This is the third time that Trump has personally taken legal action against a news organisation during his second term. The first occasion was earlier this year, when he sued The Wall Street Journal, claiming that a letter he wrote to Jeffrey Epstein didn’t exist. (Since the WSJ lawsuit was filed, the letter has been published, and Trump continues to deny that he wrote it, even though it’s clearly signed by him.) He also filed a lawsuit against The New York Times and the authors of Lucky Loser.

Trump has sued numerous other media figures and news organisations over the years, including Bill Maher and CNN. He sued Bob Woodward for copyright infringement, though that case was dismissed. His lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll was also dismissed. His unsuccessful lawsuit against Timothy L. O’Brien’s book TrumpNation sought $5 billion in damages.

Trump has never won a libel case in court, though he has received settlements in two cases. ABC settled after he sued them last year. CBS also agreed to an out-of-court settlement earlier this year after he sued them in 2024.

Occasionally, Trump has filed defamation suits indirectly via his organisations or relatives. His brother sued their niece, Mary Trump, in 2020, though the case was dismissed. A suit filed against the NYT by his presidential campaign also failed. His wife won undisclosed damages from The Daily Telegraph in 2019, and she was awarded $3 million in damages from the Daily Mail in 2017.

Two of the BBC’s most senior executives, Director-General Tim Davie and head of BBC News Deborah Turness, both resigned over the fallout from Panorama’s Trump episode, making Davie the third BBC director-general to resign over a controversial programme. Greg Dyke quit alongside BBC chairman Gavin Davies in 2004, following the suicide of David Kelly, who had been the source for a Radio 4 report about the government allegedly ‘sexing up’ a dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. George Entwistle resigned in 2012 after Newsnight falsely accused Alistair McAlpine of child abuse.

Andy Ngo v. The Observer

Right-wing writer Andy Ngo has filed a defamation suit against Guardian News and Media over a music review published online and in The Observer. In his review of the Mumford and Sons album Rushmere, critic Phil Mongredien mentioned that Winston Marshall left the band after he had “praised “alt-right” agitator Andy Ngo.”

The review was published on the Guardian’s website on 28th March (and remains online), and in The Observer’s arts supplement The New Review on 30th March. The Observer has since been sold, though Ngo is suing GNM as it owned the newspaper at the time of publication.

GNM has argued that the term ‘alt-right’ was used in quotation marks to indicate that it was a label applied to Ngo by others. The company also defined ‘alt-right’ as more radical than centre-right though not as extreme as far-right.

In a pre-trial High Court judgement released today, however, judge Guy Vassall-Adams agreed with Ngo “that alt-right would be understood by readers to refer to an extreme right-wing position”, and that this was presented in the article as a fact without evidence. Thus, he wrote, the meaning of the phrase was “plainly defamatory at common law.”

Panorama

President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for $1 billion, after it broadcast an episode of its long-running documentary series Panorama that edited one of his speeches in a misleading way. A letter from Trump’s lawyer accuses the BBC of making “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements” in the programme.

The Panorama episode, Trump: A Second Chance?, featured an extract from a speech Trump gave on the morning of 6th January 2021, the day of the attempted insurrection by Trump supporters at the US Capitol building in Washington. At an early point in the speech, Trump said: “we’re gonna walk down, and I’ll be there with you... We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” The speech continued for almost an hour, and in the final passages Trump’s tone became more combative: “And we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

However, Panorama edited three soundbites from the speech together seamlessly, making Trump appear to say: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, / and I’ll be there with you / And we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.” This went beyond the usual editing for brevity and clarity, as it changed the sequence of his words and spliced together lines that were delivered almost an hour apart. But it did not fundamentally alter the meaning of Trump’s speech, as he was impeached for inciting violence at the Capitol.

The episode was broadcast twice last year: on BBC1 on 28th October, and repeated on BBC2 on 2nd November. Under UK defamation law, a one-year statute of limitations applies, meaning that Trump could not now sue the BBC in the UK. His home state, Florida, has a two-year statute of limitations for defamation, and Trump’s legal letter to the BBC states that he intends to sue under Florida’s defamation law.

Although a lawsuit would fall within Florida’s statute of limitations, Trump would be almost certain to lose a libel case, as the Panorama episode was not broadcast or streamed by any of the BBC’s American TV services. (BBC1 and BBC2 are UK domestic channels. The programme was available via the BBC iPlayer for a year after its first broadcast, though that service is geoblocked outside the UK.) As the Panorama episode was not accessible to an American audience, it does not fall within the remit of a Florida court.

Panorama’s editing of the Trump speech was criticised in an internal BBC report by Michael Prescott, a former BBC advisor, who accused the programme of “taking a distinctly anti-Trump stance.” His report was leaked to The Daily Telegraph, which published it on 4th November. Two of the BBC’s most senior executives, Director-General Tim Davie and head of BBC News Deborah Turness, both resigned over the controversy five days later. Trump wrote a Truth Social post describing Davie and Turness as “very dishonest”, and thanked the Telegraph for its coverage.

Davie is the third BBC director-general to resign over a controversial programme. Greg Dyke quit alongside BBC chairman Gavin Davies in 2004, following the suicide of David Kelly, who had been the source for a Radio 4 report about the government allegedly ‘sexing up’ a dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. George Entwistle resigned in 2012 after Newsnight falsely accused Alistair McAlpine of child abuse.

This is the third time that Trump has personally taken legal action against a news organisation during his second term. The first occasion was earlier this year, when he sued The Wall Street Journal, claiming that a letter he wrote to Jeffrey Epstein didn’t exist. (Since the WSJ lawsuit was filed, the letter has been published, and Trump continues to deny that he wrote it, even though it’s clearly signed by him.) He also filed a lawsuit against The New York Times and the authors of Lucky Loser.

(Trump’s legal letter to the BBC was sent on 9th November, and he has given them until 14th November to retract the Panorama programme, apologise, and pay unspecified compensation. This five-day notice period before a libel lawsuit can be issued is stipulated under Florida’s defamation law, though when Trump sued the Journal, he gave less than five days notice, issuing his lawsuit only a few days after he called Murdoch seeking a retraction. This could potentially invalidate his case against the Journal.)

Trump has sued numerous other media figures and news organisations over the years, including Bill Maher and CNN. He sued Bob Woodward for copyright infringement, though that case was dismissed. His lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll was also dismissed. His unsuccessful lawsuit against Timothy L. O’Brien’s book TrumpNation sought $5 billion in damages.

Trump has never won a libel case in court, though he has received settlements in two cases. ABC settled after he sued them last year. CBS also agreed to an out-of-court settlement earlier this year after he sued them in 2024.

Occasionally, Trump has filed defamation suits indirectly via his organisations or relatives. His brother sued their niece, Mary Trump, in 2020, though the case was dismissed. A suit filed against the NYT by his presidential campaign also failed. His wife won undisclosed damages from The Daily Telegraph in 2019, and she was awarded $3 million in damages from the Daily Mail in 2017.

Lucky Loser:How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success

US President Donald Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit against the publisher and authors of Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. The book, by New York Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, was published last year. Buettner and Craig won the Pulitzer Prize for their investigations into Trump’s finances, and the book is an expanded account of their findings.

Trump’s lawsuit, filed on 15th September at the US District Court in Florida, describes Lucky Loser as “filled with repugnant distortions and fabrications about President Trump”. He is seeking an extraordinary $15 billion in damages, though the case will almost certainly be dismissed, as the book is a work of meticulous investigative journalism. (The lawsuit specifies multiple passages that contain allegedly defamatory statements, on pp. 5–8, 69, 148, 159, 166, 184, 219, 270, 290, 300–301, 313, 352–354, 360, 366, 398, 444–445, and 448–449.)

(The lawsuit also cites three New York Times articles — one of which is an extract from the book — as defamatory. The articles were published online and in print, in the weeks leading up to last year’s US election, though the lawsuit refers only to the online versions.)

Today, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, though he gave Trump’s legal team four weeks to submit a revised version. In a brief written order, judge Steven D. Merryday described the lawsuit as “decidedly improper and impermissible.” He argued that its focus on recounting Trump’s electoral success and business career was immaterial to the legal case, noting that it contained “abundant, florid, and enervating detail.” He stipulated that any resubmitted version must be under forty pages long, as opposed to the rambling eighty-five-page original suit.

This is only the second time that Trump has personally taken legal action against a publisher during his presidency. The first occasion was earlier this year, when he sued The Wall Street Journal, claiming that a letter he wrote to Jeffrey Epstein didn’t exist. Since the WSJ lawsuit was filed, the letter has been published, and Trump continues to deny that he wrote it, even though it’s clearly signed by him.

Trump has sued numerous other media figures and news organisations over the years, including Bill Maher and CNN. He sued Bob Woodward for copyright infringement, though that case was dismissed. His lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll was also dismissed. His unsuccessful lawsuit against Timothy L. O’Brien’s book TrumpNation sought $5 billion in damages.

Trump has never won a libel case in court, though he has received settlements in two cases. ABC settled after he sued them last year. CBS also agreed to an out-of-court settlement earlier this year after he sued them in 2024.

Occasionally, Trump has filed defamation suits indirectly via his organisations or relatives. His brother sued their niece, Mary Trump, in 2020, though the case was dismissed. A suit filed against the NYT by his presidential campaign also failed. His wife won undisclosed damages from The Daily Telegraph in 2019, and she was awarded $3 million in damages from the Daily Mail in 2017.

Lucky Loser is the twenty-second Trump tome on the Dateline Bangkok bookshelf. The others are: TrumpNation, War, The Divider, Betrayal, Confidence Man, Fire and Fury, Too Much and Never Enough, Fear, Rage, Peril, I Alone Can Fix It, A Very Stable Genius, Inside Trump’s White House, The United States of Trump, Trump’s Enemies, The Trump White House, The Room Where It Happened, Team of Five, American Carnage, The Cost, and the audiobook The Trump Tapes.

Deaw 12

Popular comedian Udom Taephanich reported to police in Kanchanaburi yesterday after a defamation suit was filed against him by Preecha Kraikruan. Preecha hit the headlines in 2017 after falsely claiming that he had won the lottery, and Udom joked about this in his twelfth stand-up comedy show, filmed in 2018.

The show — Deaw 12 (เดี่ยว 12) — was released on DVD and is streaming on Netflix. Preecha apparently only recently realised that he was the butt of Udom’s jokes, hence his libel lawsuit filed seven years after the show was recorded. In a satirical song (part of the encore, which is not included in the YouTube video of the show), Udom rapped:

“Preecha claimed the lottery was his...
It’s easier to tell lies
Than admit the truth”.

This is the third legal case against Udom. Last year, he faced lèse-majesté charges after a routine about the ‘sufficiency economy’ in his Netflix special Super Soft Power (ซูเปอร์ซอฟต์พาวเวอร์). (In that show, he didn’t challenge the notion of sufficiency economy itself; instead, he criticised the hypocrisy of influencers who falsely claim to adhere to sufficiency economy principles.)

In 2022, he was accused of endangering national security following his mildly satirical riff about military leaders Prayut Chan-o-cha and Prawit Wongsuwon. (Comparing them to unqualified pilots, he suggested that they should resign: “both of you, the pilot and copilot, please eject yourselves from the plane.”)

Donald Trump:“I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else…”

Donald Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, after the newspaper reported that he had sent child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a salacious letter on Epstein’s fiftieth birthday. Trump denies writing the letter, and is seeking an extraordinary $20 billion in damages.

In a front-page story published (in late editions) on 18th July, The Wall Street Journal revealed the existence of an album compiled in 2003 by Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell — who is also a child sex offender — containing letters and cards from Epstein’s friends, including Trump. Trump’s lawsuit reproduces the front page, though it refers primarily to the online version of the article published on 17th July.

In his letter to Epstein, Trump wrote: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” The text is enclosed within a drawing of the outline of a nude woman, and Trump signed the letter in the position where the woman’s pubic hair would be. A thick marker pen, Trump’s preferred type, was used for the drawing and signature.

Trump, like Prince Andrew, was a close associate of Epstein’s who attempted to distance himself once Epstein’s crimes were revealed. He is currently trying to deflect attention away from Epstein, though this lawsuit will have the opposite effect. The WSJ article — written by Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, and headlined “Trump’s Bawdy Letter to Epstein Was in 50th Birthday Album” — includes denials by Trump, and quotes him as saying: “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else”.

Safdar and Palazzolo are named in Trump’s lawsuit, as is media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the proprietor of the WSJ. Trump posted on Truth Social on 18th July: “I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But now he has, and I’m going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper.” Trump is seeking $10 billion in damages for defamation per se, and a further $10 billion for defamation per quod (that is, implicit defamation).

Murdoch has a chequered history with Trump, as does the Journal. In an editorial at the beginning of the year, the newspaper called Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada “The Dumbest Trade War in History”. Rather than backing down since the lawsuit was issued, the Journal today printed a potentially even more damaging revelation: that Trump was told by his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, in May “that his name was in the Epstein files”.

In US defamation cases involving public figures, proof of ‘actual malice’ (deliberate dishonesty) is required. By quoting Trump’s denial, and by describing the letter as “bearing Trump’s name” rather than directly stating that Trump wrote it, the Journal’s report demonstrates due diligence rather than malice. The obvious authenticity of the album containing the letter is also a strong indication that the Journal was not guilty of deception.

Trump has sued numerous other media figures and news organisations, including Bill Maher, Timothy L. O’Brien, Bob Woodward, and CNN. But these lawsuits were all filed either while Trump was out of office, or before he entered politics. Therefore, his lawsuit against the WSJ is the first time that a sitting American president has ever sued a media organisation.

(Coincidentally, yesterday another head of state also filed a defamation lawsuit: French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte sued podcaster Candace Owens. They are seeking damages after Owens alleged in multiple podcast episodes that Brigitte Macron was a biological male.)

Gavin Newsom: “See you in court, buddy...”

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, is suing Fox News host Jesse Watters for defamation, after Watters accused him of lying about a phone call with President Donald Trump. Newsom is seeking $787 million in damages, the same amount that Fox paid to settle the Dominion Voting System defamation case in 2023.

Newsom’s lawsuit, filed on 27th June, accuses Fox News of “disregarding basic journalistic ethics in favor of malicious propaganda”. In a statement, Fox rejected what it described as Newsom’s “transparent publicity stunt”.

On 10th June, Trump claimed to have spoken to Newsom by phone “a day ago”, though Newsom denied this. On his Primetime show that evening, Watters said: “Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?” A chyron on screen read: “GAVIN LIED ABOUT TRUMP’S CALL”.

On 17th July, Watters made an on-air apology to Newsom: “He didn’t deceive anybody on purpose, so I’m sorry. He wasn’t lying.” In reply, Newsom issued a statement saying simply: “See you in court, buddy.”

Donald Trump v. CBS:“The settlement does not include a statement of apology...”

Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, has reached an out-of-court settlement with Donald Trump, and will pay $16 million to a charity of his choice. The settlement was agreed yesterday, and Paramount noted that it did not include an admission of liability: “The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret.” Trump sued CBS in 2024 — shortly before he won that year’s US presidential election — following an interview with former vice president Kamala Harris on the flagship 60 Minutes programme.

Trump had been seeking $20 billion in damages. The amount was completely unrealistic, but the entire case was equally dubious: his complaint was simply that CBS showed different portions of one of Harris’s answers in two different broadcasts. It’s common practice for TV networks to edit extended interviews for reasons of timing, using different clips and soundbites for various platforms or shows, yet Paramount has decided not to fight the case in court. It’s likely that the company wanted to avoid any rancour while the Trump administration is assessing its proposed merger with Skydance.

Harris was interviewed by CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker, and clips from the interview were aired on Face the Nation on 5th October 2024. A longer version of the interview was broadcast on 60 Minutes on the following day. Harris was asked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the lawsuit notes that “Kamala replies to Whitaker with her typical word salad” in the Face the Nation clip, while she “appears to reply to Whitaker with a completely different, more succinct answer” on 60 Minutes.

The Face the Nation clip shows Harris answering the question by saying: “Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.” In the 60 Minutes segment, her answer is: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”

The lawsuit argued that the 60 Minutes interview was edited to make Harris appear more coherent. With his characteristic hyperbole, at a rally on 23rd October 2024 Trump said: “I think it’s the biggest scandal in broadcasting history.” CBS released a full transcript of the interview — something that Trump’s lawsuit had called for — which revealed that the Face the Nation clip was the first half of her answer to the question, and the 60 Minutes version was the second half of her answer to the same question.

Paramount’s settlement is another example of an American media company avoiding antagonising Trump in his second term. Similarly, ABC News settled a Trump defamation lawsuit in December last year, despite having a strong legal case.

“Salacious and defamatory accusations...”

Music producer Russell Simmons has filed a defamation lawsuit against HBO and the makers of the documentary On the Record, which features interviews with women who have accused him of sexual assault. He is seeking $20 million in damages.

On the Record (directed by Kirby Dick and Amy Zieling) premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on 25th January 2020, and was released on the HBO Max streaming platform later that year (on 27th May). The lawsuit describes the documentary as “a film that tremendously disparaged and damaged Mr. Simmons with salacious and defamatory accusations”.

Simmons is one of three disgraced figures from the music industry currently suing filmmakers who have exposed accusations of sexual misconduct, and all three men stand very little chance of winning their libel cases. Chris Brown filed a libel lawsuit in January, as did Sean Combs. Combs, better known as Diddy and Puff Daddy, has since filed another libel lawsuit: he is seeking $100 million in damages over allegations of sexual assault in the documentary Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy, which was released on NBC’s Peacock streaming service on 14th January.

SpotlightSpy in the IRA

A jury at the High Court in Dublin has awarded Gerry Adams €100,000 in damages after a month-long libel trial. Adams had sued the BBC over its documentary Spy in the IRA, in which an anonymous source — identified only by the first name Martin — accused Adams of authorising the IRA’s killing of Denis Donaldson in 2006.

In the programme, reporter Jennifer O’Leary said: “Martin believes that the shooting of Denis Donaldson was sanctioned by the man at the top of the republican movement, Gerry Adams.” When O’Leary asked Martin, “Who are you specifically referring to?”, he answered: “Gerry Adams. He gives the final say.” The programme followed this reply with a disclaimer stating that Adams insisted he “had no knowledge of, and no involvement whatsoever, in Denis Donaldson’s killing.”

Spy in the IRA, an episode in the investigative series Spotlight, was broadcast on 20th September 2016 on BBC1 in Northern Ireland, and repeated on BBC2 in Northern Ireland the following day. During the libel trial, O’Leary testified that she had corroborated Martin’s claim with five other sources — this suggests responsible, well-informed journalism, not bias. When he gave evidence at the trial, Adams denied under oath ever having been a member of the IRA, though his status as a former senior IRA leader is common knowledge among journalists and historians.

It’s conceivable that some members of the jury were from generations who came of age after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, and have no personal recollection of the era known as ‘the Troubles’, during which Adams was certainly not regarded as a peacemaker. Also, it’s highly likely that Adams benefited from his decision to bring the case in the Republic of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland, to ensure a more sympathetic jury.

Another alleged former IRA member has also launched a libel suit in relation to a different unsolved murder. Marian Price is suing the makers of the TV series Say Nothing, a dramatisation of the IRA’s 1972 abduction and killing of Jean McConville. Although noone has been convicted of McConville’s murder, the drama shows her being shot by Price.

The shooting takes place in Say Nothing’s final episode, titled The People in the Dirt, directed by Michael Lennox. The episode ends with a written disclaimer stating that Price “denies any involvement in the murder of Jean McConville.” The series was released on the Hulu and Disney+ streaming services on 14th November last year.

“Publishers are not liable for honest mistakes...”

A jury has found that The New York Times did not defame Sarah Palin when it published an editorial on 14th June 2017. Palin had sued the newspaper for libel over a sentence in the editorial falsely implying that her campaign had encouraged the 2011 shooting of fellow politician Gabby Giffords: “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

The newspaper had swiftly apologised for the editorial — “We got an important fact wrong, incorrectly linking political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords” — and inserted a clarification into the online version of the article the day after its original publication: “no connection to the shooting was ever established.” The initial libel case ended on 15th February 2022, when a jury concluded that the editorial was not defamatory.

Palin appealed against that verdict, and she was granted a retrial on 28th August last year. Yesterday, the week-long retrial ended with a different jury reaching the same conclusion, that the newspaper did not intentionally defame Palin. After yesterday’s verdict, New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said: “The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.”

Last Week Tonight

Dr Brian Morley, former director of US private healthcare contractor AmeriHealth Caritas, has filed a $75,000 defamation lawsuit against John Oliver, host of the HBO comedy show Last Week Tonight. In a segment about Medicaid broadcast on 14th April last year, Oliver quoted Morley’s justification for reducing personal care support for a disabled man in Iowa who needed diapers: “I would allow him to be a little dirty for a couple of days.”

Morley’s lawsuit, filed on 28th March at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that the quote was taken out of context. However, in the segment, Oliver preemptively addressed this point: “when I first heard that, I thought that has to be taken out of context. There is no way a doctor, a licenced physician, would testify in a hearing that he thinks it’s okay if people have shit on them for days. So, we got the full hearing, and I’m not going to play it for you, I’m just going to tell you: he said it, he meant it, and it made me want to punch a hole in the wall.”

Oliver then responded to Morley’s quote directly: “I guess I’d say fuck that doctor with a rusty canoe, I hope he gets tetanus of the balls. And if he has a problem with my language there, I’d say I’m allowed to be dirty. People are allowed to be a little dirty sometimes, apparently that’s doctor’s fucking orders.”

The show was previously sued for libel by Bob Murray, CEO of coal company Murray Energy, in relation to a segment broadcast on 18th June 2017. That lawsuit, filed on 10th October 2017, stated: “The statements that the plaintiffs alleged were defamatory included statements indicating that Mr. Murray had no evidence to support his assertion that an earthquake caused a mine collapse that killed nine people; a statement that Mr. Murray and Murray Energy “appear to be on the same side as black lung” and that their position on a coal dust regulation was the equivalent of rooting for bees to kill a child”.

Murray also argued that Oliver’s description of him as “a geriatric Dr Evil” was defamatory. The case was dismissed on 21st February 2018.