Trump Goes Insane and Threatens to Sue EveryOne- Is this True?

I saw this photo in my FB page today. I was not sure if this is completely true. So I asked my Writing Assistant ChatGPT. The following is the detailed explanation of the photo below.    

The image’s claims are partly true, but also somewhat exaggerated or simplified. Here’s what the evidence shows:

---

What is true or supported by reporting

1. Trump has threatened to sue authors, publishers, and media outlets

   • In a recent post on Truth Social, Trump said: “At some point, I am going to sue some of these dishonest authors and book publishers, or even media in general.” Anadolu Ajansı+3Business Insider+3France 24+3

   • He also said that “a big price should be paid” for what he considered dishonest reporting. France 24+2Anadolu Ajansı+2

   • More broadly, he has in past years threatened to revisit libel laws to make them more favorable to plaintiffs. American Civil Liberties Union+2Al Jazeera+2

2. He has filed defamation or libel lawsuits against major media organizations

   • In July 2025, Trump sued The Wall Street Journal (and its parent companies and reporters), claiming defamation over an article about his alleged involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. Reuters

   • In September 2025, he filed a $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, accusing it of libel, defamation, and false reporting in multiple articles and a book. Reuters+3Reuters+3AP News+3

So yes — he is actively using or threatening litigation against authors, commentators, or media outlets that portray him negatively.

3. He has suggested changing libel laws

   • In his statements, Trump alluded to the possibility of creating “new laws” to make it easier to sue for defamation. Al Jazeera+3Business Insider+3France 24+3

   • Historically, he has floated proposals to alter or revisit libel rules so plaintiffs (especially public figures) would have easier recourse. American Civil Liberties Union+2Al Jazeera+2

---

What the image overstates or misframes

• The image’s language — “threatens to sue everyone,” “lose his mind,” “this is fascism at work” — is hyperbolic. While Trump is making sweeping threats, it’s not literally clear that he is suing every author or commentator.

• The image suggests he has already changed libel laws or is actively in the process of doing so; there is no evidence that he has succeeded in altering federal or state libel statutes to date.

• Also, especially for public figures like Trump, U.S. law imposes high burdens for defamation claims (e.g. the “actual malice” standard from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan). Wikipedia+2Al Jazeera+2

• Threats or lawsuits do not always result in legal victories; many such suits may be dismissed or settled.

---

Bottom line

The core claim is true in broad strokes: Trump has threatened lawsuits and is pushing for more favorable defamation laws against critics, especially authors and media. But the image’s tone and certainty (“insane,” “everyone,” “fascism”) are rhetorical exaggerations rather than strictly factual.

If you like, I can fact-check a specific post (date, exact text) or trace whether he has started any legislative effort to change libel law. Do you want me to dig into that?

Here’s what the public record and legal analysis show regarding whether Trump has (or could) push through a change in libel law:

---

What Trump has done so far

• Threats and statements

  • On February 26, 2025, after a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized his tariff plans, Trump posted on Truth Social that “at some point I am going to sue some of these dishonest authors and book publishers, or even media in general … Maybe we will create some NICE NEW LAW!!!” The Guardian+1

  • Over many years, he has repeatedly said he wants to “open up” libel laws so critics, authors, and media outlets could more easily be sued. Florida Bar+3First Amendment Watch+3PolitiFact+3

  • During his presidency, he rarely advanced any concrete legislative proposal or bill to alter libel law in a serious, formal way. South Carolina Press Association+2First Amendment Watch+2

• Actual lawsuits in the media/defamation domain

  • In 2025, Trump sued The New York Times for $15 billion, alleging long-running defamation, though a judge struck down one version of the complaint for being excessively long (but allowed a revised version) CBS News

  • He has also sued The Wall Street Journal and others for defamation claims. Al Jazeera+3Axios+3South Carolina Press Association+3

  • Some suits have been dismissed due to procedural or substantive grounds (e.g. failure to meet legal standards) Axios+2National Law Review+2

  • He once attempted to block or preempt publication of Fire and Fury by threatening legal action. Wikipedia+2Florida Bar+2

• Legal maneuvers in defamation suits

  • In the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, Trump tried to invoke the “fair report privilege” (which protects reporting on official or public proceedings) to have parts of the suit dismissed — though that effort was unsuccessful. Reporters Committee

  • His legal filings and strategies sometimes test the boundaries of First Amendment protections or seek to challenge existing defamation standards. First Amendment Watch+3Media Law Resource Center+3Columbia Undergraduate Law Review+3

---

What he has not done (or cannot easily do)

• No actual change to libel law

  • As of now, there is no evidence that any federal libel law has been changed. PolitiFact+3South Carolina Press Association+3First Amendment Watch+3

  • He has not successfully eliminated or relaxed the “actual malice” standard (a constitutional requirement for public-figure defamation cases) that stems from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). National Law Review+3PBS+3South Carolina Press Association+3

  • He has not introduced or shepherded a credible bill or constitutional amendment aimed at rewriting defamation law. Analysts generally regard his earlier promises to “open up” libel laws as unfulfilled. PolitiFact+3PolitiFact+3South Carolina Press Association+3

• Structural and legal constraints

  • There is no federal libel statute to "open up." Libel and defamation law is largely handled at the statelevel, though constrained by constitutional (First Amendment) protections. PolitiFact+5First Amendment Watch+5American Civil Liberties Union+5

  • The Supreme Court’s precedent (especially New York Times v. Sullivan) sets high bar requirements (e.g. proving “actual malice”) for public-figure plaintiffs to prevail. Changing that would require overturning or significantly altering constitutional doctrine, which is quite difficult. Columbia Undergraduate Law Review+3PBS+3South Carolina Press Association+3

  • Even a president or Congress can’t simply ignore or override Supreme Court rulings on constitutional protections. To change the standard, one would likely need a constitutional amendment (a very high bar) or a Supreme Court decision that departs from precedent. Columbia Undergraduate Law Review+3PBS+3First Amendment Watch+3

• Promises labeled as “stalled”

  • Fact-checkers have judged Trump’s pledges to “open up libel laws” as stalled or broken because they haven’t produced concrete legal reform. PolitiFact+2PolitiFact+2

  • His administration did not push major legislative proposals to weaken defamation protections during his presidency, beyond rhetoric and threats. South Carolina Press Association+1

---

Assessment

• Trump is actively using lawsuits and legal threats against authors, commentators, media companies, and publishers. That part of the image’s claim is supported by real activity (e.g. suing NYT, WSJ, etc.).

• He has not succeeded in changing libel law in any structural, lasting, or constitutional way. His threats to “open up” libel laws remain unexecuted in law.

• Many legal analysts view his lawsuits and threats as strategic — to intimidate, chill criticism, or force settlements — rather than as part of a successful legal reform campaign. National Law Review+2South Carolina Press Association+2

• Because U.S. defamation law is deeply embedded in First Amendment jurisprudence, any meaningful change would require major legal shifts (e.g. Supreme Court reversal or constitutional amendment), not just executive or legislative fiat.

Here’s a concise, sourced take on whether Trump (or anyone) can realistically change the “actual malice” standard from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and make libel suits against public figures much easier.

Short answer

It’s possible but unlikely in the short term. Overturning or weakening Sullivan would require either the Supreme Court to explicitly reverse its precedent (via a case that draws five votes), or a constitutional amendment — both hard and uncertain. Trump can — and does — bring many defamation suits and pressure publishers (which can chill speech), but he has not succeeded in changing the legal standard that protects the press. Axios+2Moritz College of Law+2

Why overturning Sullivan is difficult (key points)

1. It’s a Supreme Court precedent rooted in the First Amendment.
   Sullivan established the “actual malice” standard for public-figure defamation claims; changing it meaningfully means the Supreme Court must depart from that precedent. That requires a case that the Court takes and at least five Justices willing to overrule. United States Courts+1

2. The Court has shown some interest but not a decisive majority.
   Some conservative Justices (notably Justice Thomas and others in writings) have signaled openness to revisiting Sullivan, and originalist commentators argue for overruling. But the Court has recently declined to take vehicles that would directly overturn the precedent — indicating no clear majority yet. Moritz College of Law+1

3. Even with a sympathetic Court, doctrine and politics matter.
   Overturning Sullivan would be a big shift in First Amendment doctrine. That has big political and institutional consequences, so even a Court majority may proceed cautiously. Legal scholars and press-freedom advocates strongly oppose undoing the standard. Knight First Amendment Institute+1

4. A president or Congress alone can’t simply rewrite the constitutional standard.
   Congress can pass laws about civil liability, and states can change statutory defamation rules, but federal constitutional limits (and Supreme Court precedent) constrain how far those laws can go for public-figure claims. A durable, nationwide rollback of Sullivan-style protections would likely require either (a) a Supreme Court reversal or (b) a constitutional amendment. Both are difficult. University of Chicago Legal Forum+1

5. Tactical reality: lawsuits + threats can still chill the press.
   Even without changing the law, repeated high-profile suits, large claimed damages, and threats can push outlets to settle or self-censor to avoid expensive litigation. So the practical effect Trump seeks — reducing critical coverage by creating legal and financial risk — can happen even if the legal standard remains. Freedom Forum+1

Bottom line 

• Trump has threatened and filed many lawsuits — that’s real and ongoing. Freedom Forum

• But Sullivan still stands; no legal overhaul has happened. Overturning it would require clear Supreme Court action or a constitutional amendment, neither of which has occurred

  Finally my photo of the Day: 

  
  My youngest Daughter, Ditas, sideline- Sound Bath Therapy