🚨 BREAKING: Trump LOSES CONTROL After Jimmy Kimmel DROPS a SHOCKING Lawsuit BOMBSHELL LIVE On Air — Chaos Erupts Behind the Scenes 🔥

Washington — Former President Donald Trump has opened a new front in his long-running conflict with the American news media, filing a series of defamation lawsuits that legal experts say face steep hurdles while underscoring his broader strategy of confrontation.

Mr. Trump’s most recent legal actions include a lawsuit against CNN, which he accuses of repeatedly defaming him by characterizing him as racist and authoritarian, and a separate, sweeping complaint seeking $15 billion in damages from The New York Times. In public statements, Mr. Trump has portrayed the suits as an effort to hold what he calls “degenerate” media institutions accountable for years of hostile coverage.

The filings quickly became fodder for late-night television, particularly on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, where Jimmy Kimmel devoted an extended segment to examining the lawsuits’ claims, tone, and timing. Rather than rebutting the accusations directly, Mr. Kimmel framed the litigation as part of a broader pattern in which Mr. Trump treats criticism itself as grounds for legal retaliation.

At the heart of the lawsuits is a familiar challenge for public figures pursuing defamation claims in the United States. Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, plaintiffs who are public officials or public figures must demonstrate not only that statements were false, but that they were made with “actual malice” — knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Legal scholars note that this standard makes successful suits against major news organizations rare.

Mr. Trump, however, has long argued that the existing framework is unfair and has repeatedly called for changes to libel laws. During his presidency and after leaving office, he has threatened or pursued legal action against journalists, networks, publishers, and even individual critics, often announcing potential lawsuits in public forums before formal filings are made.

In the CNN case, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argue that the network’s commentary went beyond opinion and crossed into defamatory assertion by repeatedly invoking comparisons to historical dictators. In the suit against The New York Times, Mr. Trump alleges a decades-long campaign of false reporting designed to damage him personally and politically.

Representatives for both news organizations have responded by emphasizing the protections afforded to press freedom under the First Amendment and by signaling that they intend to vigorously defend the cases rather than seek settlement.

On his show, Mr. Kimmel focused less on the technical merits of the lawsuits than on what he described as their cumulative effect. He portrayed Mr. Trump as increasingly reliant on litigation as a response to unfavorable coverage, suggesting that the sheer volume of threats and filings has transformed lawsuits from a legal remedy into a political and cultural signal.

“Every disagreement becomes a court case,” Mr. Kimmel quipped, framing the former president’s approach as reflexive rather than strategic. The segment drew sustained applause from the studio audience and quickly circulated online, amplifying attention to the lawsuits themselves.

The dynamic highlights a paradox that media analysts have long observed in Mr. Trump’s relationship with the press. Legal threats and attacks often generate additional coverage, extending the life of stories he finds objectionable. At the same time, they reinforce his image among supporters as a figure willing to fight institutions he characterizes as hostile elites.

For the news organizations involved, the lawsuits present both legal and symbolic stakes. While the probability of a large damages award against a major outlet remains low, defending such cases requires time, resources, and sustained public explanation. Editors and executives have warned that aggressive litigation strategies by powerful figures can have a chilling effect, particularly on smaller outlets less equipped to withstand prolonged legal battles.

Mr. Trump’s critics argue that the suits fit a broader pattern in which legal systems are used to exert pressure rather than to resolve genuine disputes. Supporters counter that the former president is exercising his right to seek redress and challenging what they see as entrenched media bias.

As the cases move forward, courts will determine whether the complaints survive early motions to dismiss — a critical threshold that many defamation suits never cross. Regardless of the outcomes, the filings have already achieved one effect: placing Mr. Trump’s adversarial relationship with the press back at the center of public debate.

In that sense, the lawsuits reflect a familiar cycle. Criticism prompts escalation; escalation produces attention; attention reinforces the conflict. Whether this strategy yields legal victories remains uncertain. But as both the courtroom and the late-night stage suggest, the battle between Mr. Trump and the media is far from over — and continues to blur the line between law, politics, and performance.