There Are Serious Problems With the NYT Story about Trump Demanding that DOJ Pay Him $230 Million

I’m not a lawyer, but I know how to read. So this story in the New York Times today…

…contains at least some claims that can be immediately checked. Trump is supposed to have filed two claims against DOJ. First claim, as the Times describes it:

Mr. Trump submitted complaints through an administrative claim process that often is the precursor to lawsuits. The first claim, lodged in late 2023, seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the F.B.I. and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the claim has not been made public.

The story goes on to add that Trump is telling DOJ to pay the claim — or, rather, the story claims that Trump is “said to” be making that demand. Note that the story isn’t based on any kind of paper trail, but is instead sourced to people who “spoke on the condition of anonymity.”

But here’s the first problem, from 28 U.S. Code § 2675(a): “The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section.” Under normal circumstances, the federal government only has six months to respond to a claim, or the claim is construed as having been denied.

The Times doesn’t explain the timeline. Why is a claim filed in 2023 still alive in the bureaucracy in late 2025, if final disposition of a federal claim is typically required within six months? There are exceptions in the law, but the story doesn’t mention them. Further, going back to the story:

The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024, accuses the F.B.I. of violating Mr. Trump’s privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents.

In both cases, there was plenty of time for the Biden-era DOJ to respond to these claims before January 20, 2025. Why didn’t they? Why are a two-year-old claim and a more-than-year-old claim still considered active? The story contains no discussion of legally permissible delays, or of communication between the DOJ and Trump’s representatives regarding an extension of time to consider the claims. “Two people familiar with the president’s legal claims said that he had not been paid by the federal government but that he expected to be,” the Times reports. But generally, the failure of an agency to arrive at the final disposition of a claim within six months shall be deemed a final denial of the claim.

The last paragraph of the Times story deals with the problem of the claims arriving during the Biden years, in a story that says Trump is using the presidency to make the government give him money: “Some former officials have privately expressed misgivings that the department’s leaders did not reject Mr. Trump’s legal claims in the waning days of the Biden administration. It has long been standard practice for civil litigation, including lawsuits against the government, to be paused until any criminal cases around the same facts have been resolved.” But note what the story doesn’t do: It doesn’t even try to explain the problem it just raised. There are no interviews with Joe Biden’s attorney general, or Joe Biden’s deputy attorney general, in which they are asked to explain why they acted or didn’t act on the claims, especially given the months they had to know that Trump had won the election and would become president again.

Extreme vagueness, anonymous sources, problems of timing, a legal standard that appears likely to moot the question but isn’t addressed. This is a disturbing story if it’s true, but that’s a mighty big “but.”

I’ve just filed a FOIA request with the DOJ Civil Division for Trump’s supposed 2023 and 2024 claims, but I don’t expect a quick response. I strongly suspect there’s more to this story than Times is reporting, and don’t miss the fact that the Times makes no reference to the thing I just did: They do not say that they used FOIA to try to obtain Trump’s supposed claims. Why on earth would a newspaper claim that the President of the United States is trying to shake down the federal government for $230 million without assembling the paper trail?

Skepticism. Approach this story with considerable skepticism. If you’re a lawyer who has filed claims against the federal government, I would welcome your insight into the reporting on these claims.