Trump’s Media Law Hit Man
Alejandro “Alex” Brito has emerged as one of the most signifcant litigators in America right now due to his track record of representing President Donald Trump in his fight against media outlets like – most recently – the defamation claim against the BBC.
The Miami-born trial lawyer, once known primarily for franchise and trade secret disputes, now commands national attention as the architect behind former President Donald Trump’s aggressive defamation litigation campaign targeting major media organizations with billion-dollar claims and yielding multimillion-dollar settlements.
The Brito Background
Brito founded Brito PLLC, a Miami-based boutique litigation firm specializing in complex commercial, franchise, and trade secret disputes.
Qualifying in history from Florida International University in 1993 he obtained his law degree from George Washington University Law School in 1996.
Before founding his own firm, Brito rose to partner at Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito in 2005, where he concentrated on franchise litigation, including working as an arbitrator in franchise disputes and related matters.
But that all changed dramatically when in 2023 he began representing Donald Trump in an unprecedented series of defamation and fiduciary breach actions. His cases drew headlines, in part because of his client’s prominence, but also due to the success that has resulted from several of the Trump claims.
Legal colleagues have described him as “the most lethal defamation attorney on the planet at this moment in time,” praising his “unparalleled success” in navigating politically charged media disputes.
Brito Cases and Legal Actions
Trump v. Michael Cohen (2023)
Brito filed a $500 million federal lawsuit in Florida against Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and attorney-client privilege violations stemming from Cohen’s post-conviction public disclosures. The case represents a novel approach to using civil litigation to punish and deter former associates from making public statements.
Sources: ABA Journal, New York Times
Trump v. ABC News & George Stephanopoulos (2024)
This was the case that became Brito’s signature victory. The defamation action challenged ABC’s characterization of Trump’s conduct in the E. Jean Carroll case, specifically the use of the word “rape” during broadcast coverage. The case culminated in a landmark settlement:
- $15 million paid to Trump-affiliated charitable causes
- $1 million in attorney fees paid to Brito’s firm
- Public acknowledgment from ABC News
Legal observers credit Brito as the “driving force” behind the settlement, with his tactical approach that leveraged Florida’s favorable defamation laws, countering anti-SLAPP motions, and maintaining aggressive discovery demands—creating sufficient litigation pressure to achieve a rapid resolution.
Sources: Law.com Daily Business Review – Settlement Strategy, Law.com – Settlement Odds Analysis
Trump v. The New York Times (2025)
Brito refiled a $15 billion defamation suit against The New York Times, accusing the newspaper of “election interference” through its reporting. After initial dismissal for “shotgun pleading” defects, Brito amended the complaint to address jurisdictional and pleading critiques, demonstrating adaptability in complex media litigation, a key factor in complex cases like defamation.
The massive damage claim reflects a strategic approach to defamation litigation that emphasizes punitive damages under state tort laws—a tactic Brito has refined across multiple cases.
Sources: Law.com on Refiling, ABA Journal on Dismissal, New York Times
Trump v. BBC (2025)
The current claim against the BBC is a major hot mess for the once esteemed media organization. In November 2025, Brito sent a demand letter to the BBC seeking “no less than” $1 billion for allegedly defamatory conduct in a documentary about the January 6 Capitol attack.
The threat highlights the global scope of Brito’s litigation strategy as well as the jurisdictional complexities involved in cross-border media defamation claims.
The BBC claim is not necessarily an easy one by any stretch. Legal analysts note that enforcing U.S. defamation judgments against foreign media organizations presents substantial practical barriers, but the demand itself serves strategic purposes in shaping media coverage and demonstrating aggressive legal representation.
Sources: New York Times on Threat Letter, New York Times on Legal Barriers, The Business Journal
Additional Brito Legal Actions
Brito has filed or threatened litigation against numerous other defendants on Trump’s behalf, including:
- Rupert Murdoch/Wall Street Journal: Defamation claims related to editorial coverage
- CNN: Lawsuit over Iran-related reporting
- Hunter Biden: $1 billion defamation claim
Sources: Law.com on NYT Campaign Strategy, Law.com on Hunter Biden Dispute
Brito’s Litigation Playbook
For legal strategists, law firm marketers, and litigation practitioners, Brito’s approach to Trump’s defamation cases offers instructive tactical elements:
1. Forum Selection and Jurisdictional Strategy
Brito consistently files in Florida state and federal courts, leveraging Florida’s plaintiff-friendly defamation standards and his deep familiarity with local judges and procedures.
2. Aggressive Damage Claims
By seeking damages in the hundreds of millions or billions, Brito creates substantial settlement pressure while generating media attention that amplifies his client’s narrative about “unfair” media treatment.
3. Rapid Settlement Engineering
The ABC News case demonstrates Brito’s ability to engineer settlements that provide what his client seeks, namely:
- Monetary compensation (directed to charitable causes, avoiding direct enrichment concerns)
- Attorney fee recovery (securing firm compensation)
- Public acknowledgment (achieving reputational objectives)
4. Countering Anti-SLAPP Motions
In jurisdictions with anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes designed to protect media defendants, Brito has developed strategies to overcome early dismissal motions by emphasizing actual malice standards and factual disputes.
5. Leveraging Punitive Damages
Brito’s complaints emphasize punitive damages under state tort laws, which can survive federal constitutional scrutiny when tied to specific state-law standards and egregious conduct allegations.
6. Managing “Shotgun Pleading” Critiques
When courts dismiss cases for pleading deficiencies, Brito has shown willingness to amend and refile, refining legal theories and addressing judicial concerns—a persistence that demonstrates strategic patience.
