Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What defenses did Trump Organization use in these lawsuits?
Executive summary
In the high‑profile New York business‑fraud case against the Trump Organization, defendants mounted a multipronged defense that included attacking the judge for bias, calling character witnesses (including family), deploying expensive expert witnesses, and seeking procedural relief such as mistrials and stays — tactics that culminated in an appeals court later voiding the disgorgement penalty (judge Engoron ordered $364 million, later voided on appeal) [1]. In separate media‑defamation suits (e.g., against CNN) Trump argued the coverage amounted to actionable false factual claims but appeals courts concluded such characterizations were protected opinion, rejecting revival of his claims [2] [3].
1. Defensive playbook in the New York business‑fraud trial — “attack the process”
In the New York attorney‑general case, the defense repeatedly attacked the fairness and process of the trial: they requested a mistrial on the ground of alleged judicial bias and sought postponements and procedural relief from appellate courts [1]. The defense also used procedural moves to stall adverse administrative actions — for example, a New York appeals court agreed to postpone cancellation of business certificates until trial and appeals were resolved [1]. Those procedural defenses aimed both to protect business standing during litigation and to buy time for appeals [1].
2. Witness strategy — family, character, and experts
The Trump Organization’s team presented character witnesses, including Donald Trump Jr., and relied heavily on expert testimony: reporting notes Trump spent at least $2.5 million on expert witnesses and that defense experts were paid large sums comparable to the state’s experts [1]. The defense also highlighted gaps in witness recollection (e.g., Ivanka Trump saying she could not recall certain details) as part of undermining the prosecution’s narrative [1].
3. Financial stakes and appellate contingency — preparing to fight on appeal
After Judge Arthur Engoron ordered disgorgement of roughly $364 million, the defense clearly prepared to shift much of the battle to appellate courts; that strategy paid off when an appeals court in August 2025 voided the penalty [1]. The trial record shows the defense anticipated appeals by pressing for stays and postponements of enforcement actions while contesting facts and the judge’s rulings [1].
4. Media‑defamation suits — arguing false factual assertions vs. protected opinion
In libel and defamation suits against outlets such as CNN, Trump’s legal theory was that labels like “Big Lie” were defamatory statements equating his conduct with extreme wrongdoing; his team sought damages on that basis [2] [3]. Appeals courts, however, have rejected that approach in at least one notable instance, concluding that “Big Lie” and similar language constituted protected subjective assessment or opinion not readily provable true or false — and accordingly could not sustain a defamation claim [2] [3].
5. How courts evaluated those defenses — deference to First Amendment protections
Federal appeals judges emphasized that media characterizations — even sharply critical or “objectionable” ones — are within First Amendment protection unless they include provably false factual assertions; the 11th Circuit explicitly said CNN’s description was not a factual assertion capable of being proven true or false [2]. That reasoning undercut the central factual‑falsity theory advanced by Trump’s team in that matter [2].
6. Broader context — common litigation tactics and limits of available reporting
The materials show recurring themes in Trump Organization cases: aggressive procedural maneuvers, expensive expert tactics, reliance on character witnesses, and appeals‑focused strategies [1]. Available sources do not mention other specific defenses (for example, insurance‑coverage defenses, indemnification clauses, or invocation of presidential immunities) in the New York fraud trial beyond the procedural, testimonial, and expert tactics documented [1]. For media suits, reporting focuses on the First Amendment/opinion line rather than other defenses such as privilege or statute of limitations in the specific CNN appeal [2] [3].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Prosecutors framed the New York case as enforcement of business‑fraud laws and sought large disgorgement; the defense framed its moves as protecting due process and challenging judicial overreach — a posture consistent with an implicit agenda to discredit prosecutorial findings and to preserve business and political standing [1]. In media litigation, news organizations defended broad editorial latitude under the First Amendment while Trump’s legal team used defamation claims and public pressure tactics that critics say can chill reporting; both sides have visible institutional incentives — law enforcement seeking accountability and a political figure seeking reputational and financial redress [2] [3].
Limitations: reporting is strongest on the New York case and the CNN appeal; other suits involving the Trump Organization or the president are tracked but not detailed in these sources, and available sources do not mention every defensive argument that may have been raised in other cases [1] [2] [3].