President Donald Trump could end up testifying in court to support his lawsuit against The New York Times over an opinion article alleging a "quid pro quo" deal between his campaign and Russia.
"On its merits, Trump's complaint is extremely weak," wrote attorney David Lurie in The Daily Beast on Thursday. "A defamation action requires proof that the challenged statement was false. But, because the campaign (like Trump himself) is a 'public figure,' the First Amendment also bars the suit unless the Trump campaign can establish that the newspaper acted with 'actual malice' — meaning that the Times had actual knowledge, or reckless disregard, of the challenged statement's falsity."
Former Times executive editor Max Frankel wrote an opinion column titled "The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo," which was published on March 27, 2019, before the redacted version of former special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference was released.
"Since truth is a defense, if the Trump campaign's case against the Times was to go forward to the discovery stage, the Times would inevitably seek to obtain evidence regarding whether Trump and his campaign did in fact enter into a quid pro quo arrangement with Putin," Lurie added. "Furthermore, Trump himself would also certainly be a key witness, and would be called upon to provide testimony and documents."
Lurie notes that it's possible the newspaper won't even try to dismiss the case, and will instead proceed straight to discovery.
"If the Times employs that strategy, it will be difficult for Trump to maintain that the Constitution prohibits him from being required to testify," he wrote. "After all, the campaign, a corporation Trump controls, chose to bring the case, necessarily recognizing that its principal would have to be made available to provide evidence."
Theodore Bunker ✉
Theodore Bunker, a Newsmax writer, has more than a decade covering news, media, and politics.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.