Fact Check: Trump's Lawyer Demands Retraction from NY Times, Calling Reporting Defamatory
What We Know
On June 26, 2025, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Alejandro Brito, sent a letter to The New York Times demanding a retraction and apology regarding an article that discussed a preliminary intelligence report on the impact of U.S. airstrikes in Iran. The letter characterized the article as "false," "defamatory," and "unpatriotic," claiming it damaged Trump's reputation (source-1, source-2). The article in question reported that the airstrikes had only delayed Iran's nuclear program by a few months, contradicting Trump's assertion that the strikes had "obliterated" the program (source-3).
In response, The New York Times rejected the demands, with their lawyer, David McCraw, stating, "No retraction is needed. We told the truth to the best of our ability" (source-1). CNN, which also received a similar legal threat, stood by its reporting, affirming that the intelligence assessment was accurately characterized (source-2).
Analysis
The claim that Trump's lawyer demanded a retraction from The New York Times is substantiated by multiple credible sources. The New York Times article clearly documented the existence of the preliminary intelligence report and its findings, which were confirmed by Trump administration officials (source-1). The characterization of the article as "defamatory" is subjective and reflects Trump's ongoing conflict with media outlets that report unfavorably on his administration.
The sources reporting on this incident, including The New York Times, CNN, and Mediaite, are generally considered reliable. They provide detailed accounts of the events and include direct quotes from the involved parties, which adds to their credibility. The legal threats made by Trump's lawyer are consistent with Trump's historical pattern of challenging media narratives that he perceives as damaging (source-4).
However, it is important to note that the term "defamatory" in legal contexts requires a demonstration of falsehood and harm to reputation, which is a high bar to meet. The Times' assertion that they reported the truth based on available intelligence suggests that they believe their reporting is defensible under defamation law (source-3).
Conclusion
The claim that Trump's lawyer demanded a retraction from The New York Times, calling the reporting defamatory, is True. The evidence shows that a formal demand was made, and the context surrounding the demand aligns with Trump's historical interactions with the media. The New York Times and CNN both confirmed the accuracy of their reporting, which further supports the validity of the claim.
