The New York Times published another anti-Trump hit piece.
President Trump read it. And he did not take it well.
Now Trump is threatening to add to his already massive lawsuit against them — and the word he used to describe their reporting will leave the media establishment fuming.
Trump Fires Back at the Times Over Iran War Analysis
The Times piece, written by reporter Neil MacFarquhar, carried the headline “What Changed After Almost 4 Months of War? Analysts Say Not Much.” The story leaned heavily on foreign policy skeptics who questioned whether the conflict produced any meaningful results.
Trump went straight to Truth Social to answer that question himself.
“Their Military is DONE, their Navy is GONE, their Air Force is GONE, their Launching Pads, Missiles, Drones and Manufacturing of same, is almost GONE, their top two sets of Leaders are GONE, their Inflation is at 250%, their Economy is BROKEN, their Soldiers aren’t being paid, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN, THE OIL IS GUSHING, and the U.S. Stock Market and Jobs are at record HIGHS,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “That’s what’s CHANGED, you corrupt and unethical cowards, and MORE!!!”
Ninety-one minutes later, a second post followed. This one was sharper.
“The way the Corrupt and Failing New York Times is covering stories on a very battered and beat up Iran, through FAKE & MADE UP ‘FACTS’ is, in my opinion, ‘TREASONOUS,'” Trump wrote. “I will be adding all of their false and ridiculous reporting to my multi Billion Dollar lawsuit against them. They are Criminals!”
What the Times Actually Argued
MacFarquhar’s piece leaned on analysts who expressed skepticism about the deal’s durability and scope. The story noted that Iran’s nuclear program, while heavily damaged, was not eliminated — its fate, in the reporter’s framing, “punted to future negotiation.” The article also flagged that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities went unaddressed in the agreement, that Iranian-backed proxy groups remain active across the region, and that fighting between Israel and Hezbollah continued despite the broader diplomatic push.
The Times also noted that the Strait of Hormuz — which Trump had publicly identified as essential to any deal — appeared to be in jeopardy at the time of publication, with Iran’s military claiming it was closing the waterway again because the United States had failed to stop the fighting in Lebanon. The U.S. military pushed back on that claim, saying the strait remained open as the agreement required.
That’s the kind of nuance the Times specializes in. Whether it qualifies as journalism or agenda-setting is a fair question — and Trump answered it his way.
The Deal Itself and What It Actually Includes
The memorandum of understanding Trump’s team reached with Iran after roughly 100 days of conflict is not a small thing, whatever the Times’ analysts want to say about it. The deal includes an immediate halt to military operations, Iran’s commitment to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for 60 days, a pledge by Tehran not to develop nuclear weapons, and a mechanism for disposing of enriched uranium stockpiles under international supervision. The U.S. committed to lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports within 30 days and issued waivers for Iranian oil exports.
And there’s a proposed reconstruction and economic development package worth at least $300 billion, with a compliance monitoring mechanism while the two sides negotiate a final agreement backed by a binding United Nations Security Council resolution.
That is not “not much.” That is the kind of outcome the foreign policy establishment spent decades insisting could never be achieved without regime change and another ground war.
JD Vance Heads to Switzerland
While Trump was posting on Truth Social, Vice President JD Vance was heading to Switzerland to work on hammering out a longer-term peace framework with Iran. That’s America First foreign policy in action — diplomacy, not another decade of American blood and treasure poured into the Middle East sand.
The people who built the Iraq War, cheered on the Libya intervention, and spent 20 years nation-building in Afghanistan are the same voices now telling you this Iran deal is a failure. Think about that for a second.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who shared Trump’s post and called the president’s response “spot on,” argued the Times story amounted to “an insult to our men and women in uniform” and reflected the paper’s well-documented bias against the president.
But the establishment foreign policy crowd — the same people who brought you the Iraq War playbook — is not going to cheer a deal that keeps American soldiers out of a ground war. Their institutional interest runs the other direction. Always has.
The Lawsuit Gets Bigger
Trump filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the Times last year. A judge initially dismissed it, calling the complaint “tedious and burdensome.” Trump’s legal team filed an amended 40-page complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida shortly after. Trump’s attorneys have not yet specified in court how they intend to fold the Iran coverage into the existing complaint.
Trump has previously sued ABC News and CBS News’ *60 Minutes* — both of those cases were settled out of court. He also filed suit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch over a story about his alleged ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The Times did not respond to requests for comment.
What This Is Really About
The Times has a long track record of running skeptical analysis of Trump’s foreign policy wins while treating Democrat-era foreign policy disasters as complicated situations requiring more context. There was plenty of context for the Iraq War too. The Times helped sell it.
Now the paper is running stories suggesting that ending a war, degrading Iran’s military capacity, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, and getting a signed agreement on nuclear weapons amounts to “not much.” And they’re doing it while JD Vance is actively in Switzerland trying to lock down a permanent peace arrangement.
Trump called it treasonous. That’s a strong word. But the pattern of behavior from the Times — the selective sourcing, the framing designed to undercut diplomatic progress — is not exactly a secret at this point.
The voters who sent Trump back to Washington in 2024 did so with a clear mandate: stop the endless wars, put American interests first, and stop letting the foreign policy establishment drag the country into conflicts that cost American lives and produce nothing. A deal that ends hostilities with Iran, opens the Strait of Hormuz, and puts nuclear negotiations on a formal track is exactly what that mandate looks like in practice.
And the New York Times calling it “not much” tells you everything you need to know about who the Times is actually rooting for.
Sources: Mediaite, Newsweek, RSB Network