Trump’s Pulitzer Prize Board Lawsuit Advances to Discovery, Raising Questions Over Tax and Medical Records
Donald Trump’s 2022 defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board has entered the discovery phase, with the board demanding Trump’s complete tax returns from 2015 to present, medical records, prescription medication history, and psychological health documents. The lawsuit challenges the board’s 2022 statement defending its 2018 awards to The New York Times and The Washington Post for reporting on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Judge Robert Pegg ruled in July 2024 that the board’s statement constitutes “actionable mixed opinion” rather than protected opinion, allowing the case to proceed. Trump now faces the discovery phase he avoided in recent settlements with ABC ($15 million) and CBS ($16 million).
What Is Trump’s Pulitzer Prize Board Lawsuit About?
Trump filed the lawsuit in 2022 after the Pulitzer Prize Board rejected his demands to rescind 2018 prizes awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post. He claims the board perpetuated “the absurdly false and defamatory narrative” that he and his campaign “colluded with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government” in the 2016 election.
The case is filed in Okeechobee County Circuit Court, Florida, where Trump is a resident. Twenty defendants are named, including Andrew W. Mellon Foundation president Elizabeth Alexander, The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum, Boston Globe editor Nancy Barnes, former Columbia University president Lee C.
Bollinger, journalist Katherine Boo, Poynter Institute president Neil Brown, former USA Today Editor-in-Chief Nicole Carroll, former Columbia Journalism School dean Steve Coll, New York Times columnist Gail Collins, AP Vice President John Daniszewski, Philadelphia Inquirer editor Gabriel Escobar, UCLA professor Kelly Lytle Hernandez, Pulitzer Deputy Administrator Edward Kliment, New York Times columnist Carlos Lozada, former Los Angeles Times Executive Editor Kevin Merida, Pulitzer Administrator Marjorie Miller, USC professor Viet Thahn Nguyen, The 19th CEO Emily Ramshaw, New Yorker editor David Remnick, and Harvard philosophy professor Tommie Shelby.
The Pulitzer Prize-Winning Reporting Trump Challenges
The 2018 National Reporting prizes were awarded to The New York Times and Washington Post staffs for “deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration”.
After Trump demanded the prizes be rescinded, the Pulitzer board commissioned two independent reviews and issued a 2022 statement explaining that the reviews showed no aspects of the reporting were refuted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings. Mueller’s investigation did not ultimately allege conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia, though the special counsel’s report identified “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign”.
Trump’s Specific Defamation Claims
Trump’s complaint alleges he “has been damaged by the publication of the Pulitzer Statement because it is intended to leave the reader with false impression that President Trump colluded with a hostile foreign government to undermine a United States presidential election”.
Trump’s lawsuit claims the board’s statement:
- Perpetuated the “Russia Collusion Hoax” as factual
- Falsely represented that independent reviews validated the accuracy of the reporting
- Left readers with the defamatory impression that Trump colluded with Russia
- Damaged his reputation and business interests
- Was made with actual malice or reckless disregard for truth
Discovery Phase: What’s Being Sought and Why
The Pulitzer board filed a 12-page discovery demand on December 11, 2024, requesting extensive documentation from Trump. Trump now has 30 days from that date to respond to the claims and document requests.
The board is demanding:
All of Trump’s tax returns from all jurisdictions, including attachments, schedules, and worksheets, from 2015 to present
Documents showing all sources of Trump’s income from 2015 to present
Documents showing all of Trump’s financial holdings and liabilities
Internal polling Trump conducted on himself to gauge his reputation
Documents regarding all gifts and compensation he’s received since 2015
Health records and prescription medication history
All documents concerning Trump’s medical and psychological health from January 1, 2015, to present, including prescription medications and annual physical examinations
Documents backing up Trump’s claims in other defamation cases, including those against CNN, ABC, CBS, and the Wall Street Journal
Proof that the board’s statement “had a significant impact on the 2020 presidential election”
Trump’s Tax Returns and Psychological Records: Why They Matter
The board requested all tax returns to show any potential financial harm caused by the Pulitzer board’s actions, and health records and prescription histories to demonstrate proof of Trump’s claims of mental and physical anguish.
Legal expert Brad Snyder noted that Trump could have difficulty convincing a jury that a statement by the Pulitzer Board—and not other things he’s claimed are defamatory over the years—harmed his reputation.
The filing notes Trump’s legal team could potentially avoid providing some sensitive materials by deciding not to pursue damages specifically for the alleged harms they pertain to. The filing specifies: “To the extent you do not seek such damages in this action, please confirm so in writing”.
The board’s filing leaves open the possibility for Trump’s team to claim certain materials are privileged and cannot be provided, though they must explain why.
The Actual Malice Standard for Public Figures
Under the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, public officials cannot win defamation cases unless they prove “actual malice”—that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
Elements Trump must prove:
Publication of a false defamatory statement
The statement was made with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth
Trump bears the burden of proving actual malice with “convincing clarity”
Damages to reputation or business
The actual malice standard was established to protect freedom of speech and allow robust public debate about government officials and public figures. The standard protects people who make mistakes and those who genuinely believe what they’re saying about powerful people, even if they’re wrong.
To satisfy the actual malice standard, a plaintiff needs to first convince a judge—and then later try to convince a jury—that the defendant had actually expressed some doubt about the truth of the disputed statements, or acted with reckless disregard for veracity.
Recent Court Rulings and Procedural Developments
July 2024: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss
Senior 19th Judicial Circuit Judge Robert Pegg ruled in July 2024 that the Pulitzer board’s statement is “actionable mixed opinion” rather than pure opinion protected by the First Amendment.
Pegg wrote: “Defendants cannot claim the statement is pure opinion when they withheld information from their audience that would have provided an adequate factual foundation for a common reader to decide whether to agree or disagree with Defendants’ decision to let 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in National Reporting stand”.
Judge Pegg explained that had the Pulitzers simply stated their belief in The New York Times and Washington Post, that would have been opinion and not actionable. By claiming to have conducted their own review and representing the reporting was factually correct, the board made a factual claim rather than publishing pure opinion.
February 2025: Appeals Court Denies Dismissal
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that Trump’s complaint “sufficiently pled that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defame him”. The court found that defendants issued the statement “in response to the requests of a Florida resident—Trump”.
The court concluded the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the eighteen non-Florida defendants was proper because the Pulitzer board is an unincorporated association, not a separate legal entity from its members.
May 2025: Court Rejects Stay Request
The Pulitzer board sought to halt the lawsuit while Trump serves as president, arguing it would raise constitutional concerns for a state court to exercise authority over the sitting president. The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the stay request, noting: “When the president is a willing participant, courts do not risk improperly interfering with the essential functioning of government”.
The court added: “The president—by virtue of his exceptional position—is uniquely equipped to determine how to use his time, to assess the attention a lawsuit will require, and to decide whether the lawsuit will divert him from his official business. When an officeholder chooses to initiate litigation, courts must assume the officeholder already has weighed the burdens on their official duties”.
August 2025: Florida Supreme Court Denies Review
The Florida Supreme Court refused to halt the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed in trial court. The Pulitzer board had gone to the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court’s May 2025 decision denying a stay.
December 2024: Discovery Demands Filed
On December 11, 2024, the Pulitzer board filed comprehensive discovery demands. The trial court case had been quiet since March 2025, when Judge Pegg first rejected board members’ request for a stay based on Trump’s status as president.
How the Pulitzer Prize Board Is Defending the Case
A Pulitzer board spokesperson stated: “Just like any other plaintiff, the President must articulate and prove his claims with evidence. This filing is a standard step in the discovery process to assess a claim of damages and test their validity. The Pulitzer Board will not be cowed by the president’s attempt to intimidate journalists or undermine the First Amendment”.
The board’s defense strategy includes:
Arguing the statement was protected opinion about journalistic merit
Claiming the statement accurately represented independent reviews
Demanding evidence that Trump’s reputation damage came from the Pulitzer statement rather than other sources
Seeking documents from Trump’s other defamation lawsuits to demonstrate a pattern
Forcing Trump to prove actual malice through extensive discovery
The board argues Trump faces difficulty proving the Pulitzer statement—rather than countless other sources—damaged his reputation, given his long history of media conflicts.
Legal Implications for Press Freedom and Media Law
Trump avoided the discovery phase in recent media lawsuits, with threats and initial pleadings alone securing a $16 million deal with CBS in July 2025 and a $15 million agreement with ABC in December 2024. This case represents Trump’s first defamation suit against media to reach full discovery.
Legal expert David Snyder noted: “It’s part of his brand to fight the media, that’s how he built his reputation—being adverse to the media and punishing them through litigation. Whether those claims have merit—I can’t point to any time where Trump has won a jury verdict in a libel case”.
The fights over discovery and the parameters around a potential deposition of Trump could raise constitutional issues if the president argues his special position limits his requirements to participate in his own lawsuit.
Potential precedents at stake:
Whether Pulitzer board statements constitute protected journalistic opinion or actionable factual claims
How far discovery can extend into a plaintiff’s personal records when reputation damage is claimed
Whether “actionable mixed opinion” doctrine applies to journalistic award decisions
Constitutional limits on state court authority over sitting presidents in civil litigation they initiate
The scope of actual malice requirements for public figures suing over statements defending journalistic awards
Legal observers note the key question is whether the board, like other media entities, will try to settle the case rather than subjecting itself to a potentially damaging discovery process and a jury trial.
Potential Outcomes: What Could Happen Next
Trump wins at trial: Would require proving the board acted with actual malice and caused specific damages. Trump has never won a jury verdict in a libel case.
Pulitzer board wins: Would vindicate press freedom protections under New York Times v. Sullivan and establish that award decisions involve protected editorial judgment.
Settlement: The board may settle rather than face damaging discovery, following the pattern of Trump’s recent ABC and CBS settlements. However, the board has stated it will not be “cowed” by Trump’s litigation tactics.
Summary judgment: Either party could seek summary judgment if discovery reveals no genuine factual disputes.
Dismissal on actual malice grounds: The board could argue Trump cannot prove actual malice even if his other claims are true.
The board spokesperson emphasized: “Just like any other plaintiff, the President must articulate and prove his claims with evidence”.
Timeline and Next Steps
December 2022: Trump files defamation lawsuit in Okeechobee County, Florida
January 2024: Non-Florida board members move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
July 2024: Judge Pegg rules the board’s statement is “actionable mixed opinion,” denying motion to dismiss
February 2025: Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms personal jurisdiction over all defendants
May 2025: Appeals court denies stay request while Trump serves as president
August 2025: Florida Supreme Court refuses to halt the lawsuit
December 11, 2024: Pulitzer board files comprehensive discovery demands
January 10, 2025 (approximately): Trump’s deadline to respond to discovery requests (30 days from filing)
Next steps:
- Trump must respond to discovery requests or claim privilege
- Potential disputes over scope of discovery
- Possible depositions of Pulitzer board members
- Potential deposition of Trump
- Discovery deadline to be set by court
- Possible summary judgment motions
- Trial date to be scheduled if case proceeds
Trump attorney Quincy Bird called the Florida Supreme Court’s denial a “correct and just decision” that will allow a “very illuminating discovery process” to continue.
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team stated: “President Trump is committed to holding those who traffic in fake news, lies, and smears to account, and he will see this powerhouse lawsuit through to a winning conclusion”.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Trump suing the Pulitzer Prize Board for?
Trump alleges defamation based on the board’s 2022 statement defending its 2018 awards to The New York Times and The Washington Post for reporting on alleged Russian interference and Trump campaign connections. He claims the statement perpetuated the false narrative that he colluded with Russia.
Why are Trump’s tax returns relevant to the case?
The Pulitzer board requested tax returns to demonstrate any potential financial harm caused by the board’s statement, which is necessary to prove damages in a defamation case.
Why are psychological records being requested?
Trump claims mental and physical anguish as damages. The board’s discovery requests seek medical and psychological records to verify these claims. If Trump doesn’t seek damages for mental or emotional injury, he can avoid producing these records.
What is the actual malice standard?
Under New York Times v. Sullivan, public figures must prove defendants knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for truth. This high standard protects robust public debate about public officials.
Has Trump won any defamation cases?
Legal experts note Trump has never won a jury verdict in a libel case. His recent media litigation resulted in settlements with ABC ($15 million) and CBS ($16 million) before reaching discovery.
What makes this case different from Trump’s other media lawsuits?
This is the first Trump defamation case against media to reach full discovery, as his recent cases settled before this stage. Trump must now produce extensive documentation to back up his damage claims.
When will the case go to trial?
No trial date has been set. The case must first complete the discovery phase, which could take months or longer depending on disputes over document production and depositions.
Can Trump avoid producing his tax returns?
Trump’s legal team can claim privilege for certain materials, but must explain the basis for any privilege claims. Trump can also avoid producing certain documents by not seeking damages related to those specific harms.
Case: Trump v. Members of the Pulitzer Prize Board, Florida Circuit Court, Okeechobee County, Case No. 22-CA-000246
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah