Latest Breaking News

Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2025, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

As a public figure plaintiff in a defamation suit, Trump has the burden of proving the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. He also must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew it was false or recklessly disregarded whether it was true. Essentially, the defendant must have knowingly lied or willfully ignored facts that would debunk the statement. This means in practice that Trump would have to establish that the WSJ deliberately lied or fabricated information, or had obvious reason to doubt their source but failed to verify, or departed from professional standards in ways that support an inference of knowing falsity.

That's a tough row to hoe -- and it will mean Trump will push for all kinds of discovery against the defendants, including the disclosure of confidential sources -- a particularly controversial issue in such cases.

On the other hand, WSJ doesn't have the burden of proving the statement to be true in a public figure case. Often, for defendants in defamation cases, the discovery is focused on whether there was injury to the plaintiff's reputation and/or the amount of damages. In a case like this, it probably matters less, except for show, whether Trump suffered any monetary harm -- he wants "vindication" in the form of a decision that the WSJ lied.

So why is this a dangerous case for the WSJ? Because on both the issue of the malice standard and the disclosure of confidential sources, there is every reason to believe that the current SCOTUS would overrule or limit prior precedent in order to make it easier for a public figure to sue a media outlet for defamation