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.
Fact check: Is this link acuratehttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Executive Summary
The New York Times interactive from June 2017 appears to be a curated compilation of statements the newspaper judged false or misleading; independent fact-checking and later disputes show many of the listed items were challenged and remain politically contested. Contemporaneous fact-checks and subsequent legal actions indicate both corroboration that Trump made verifiably false claims and a sustained effort by Trump to contest those characterizations, creating a factual record that is supported by some outlets and contested by others [1] [2] [3].
1. What the NYT interactive claimed and why it mattered
The referenced NYT interactive was presented as an itemized record of statements by Donald Trump that the newspaper labeled false, creating a public ledger intended to document patterns rather than adjudicate every nuance. That format treats veracity as cumulative evidence of a pattern of falsehoods, which is why it attracted attention and criticism alike. The interactive’s approach matched contemporaneous fact-checking practices that catalogued statements for public accountability; later reporting confirms independent fact-checkers found numerous specific assertions to be inaccurate or misleading [1].
2. Independent fact-checking that supports many of the entries
Subsequent and independent fact-checks have corroborated that many high-profile statements attributed to Trump did not align with observable reality, especially around foreign policy matters such as the conduct of the Russia–Ukraine war. Fact-checkers concluded that some claims were demonstrably false or lacked evidence, noting logistical realities and battlefield reports contradicted simplistic explanations offered by Trump for Russian setbacks [1]. This corroboration suggests the NYT’s compilation was not created in a vacuum but reflected broader verification efforts across newsrooms and watchdogs [1].
3. Legal challenges and the counterargument from Trump’s side
The accuracy of labeling statements as “lies” became a legal and political battleground: in 2025, Donald Trump refiled a sizable defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, alleging false and defamatory reporting and seeking $15 billion in damages. The lawsuit frames the NYT’s characterizations as not merely disputed journalism but actionable harm, and it has been reported as part of Trump’s broader strategy to contest critical coverage [2] [3]. The Times has rejected those claims and defended its journalism, calling the suit without merit and an attempt to chill reporting [3].
4. How to weigh competing sources and potential agendas
News outlets and litigants carry institutional and political incentives that shape framing: the NYT’s interactive aimed to document and criticize, independent fact-checkers aimed to verify specific claims, and Trump’s legal filings aim to delegitimize critical coverage. Each actor brings potential bias—newsrooms may emphasize pattern, fact-checkers select high-profile claims, and litigants pursue legal remedies—so readers must triangulate across sources. The provided analyses illustrate this dynamic: corroboration from fact-checks strengthens the NYT’s record while the lawsuit highlights contested interpretations and stakes [1] [2] [3].
5. Practical takeaways about the link’s “accuracy” today
Labeling the NYT link as simply “accurate” or “inaccurate” misses the nuance that it is a curated editorial inventory reflecting the paper’s judgment at a moment in time. Many specific entries in that 2017 interactive have been independently verified as false or misleading by later fact-checks, but the framing as a pattern of lies remains politically contested and legally challenged, which affects public perception more than the underlying documented statements themselves [1] [2] [3].
6. How to verify disputed items now and next steps to evaluate the link
If you want to vet particular claims from the NYT interactive, compare individual statements to contemporaneous primary-source records and later independent fact-checks rather than accept the compilation wholesale. Focus on specific assertions, locate contemporaneous reporting or official documents, and consult multiple fact-check outlets to see consensus, then weigh any subsequent legal decisions—such as judgments on the 2025 defamation suit—that may affect reputational claims [1] [2] [3].
7. Bottom line: a balanced judgment for readers
The NYT interactive is a legitimate journalistic artifact documenting claims the paper judged false; independent verification supports many of those judgments, while the subject of the piece has mounted legal challenges claiming defamation. For readers seeking a clear answer: treat the link as a credible but partisan editorial compilation that aligns with later fact-checks on many specifics, and remain aware that it is contested politically and legally [1] [2] [3].