EXCLUSIVE: 50 Cent Uses Trump Family NDA Case To Crush Shaniqua Tompkins’ Free Speech Defense

Donald Trump and 50 Cent

50 Cent’s lawyers cited the Donald Trump and Mary Trump NDA ruling to kill Shaniqua Tompkins’ free speech defense.

50 Cent just pulled Donald Trump into his $1 million legal war with Shaniqua Tompkins.

G-Unit Books filed a motion to dismiss Tompkins’ counterclaims in the New York Supreme Court. She had filed something called an anti-SLAPP defense as part of her response.

Anti-SLAPP laws exist to protect people from lawsuits meant to shut them up. Tompkins argued that G-Unit was doing exactly that by suing her for speaking publicly about 50 Cent. G-Unit’s lawyers had a quick answer for that move.

They pointed to a case called Trump v. Trump. In 2023, Donald Trump sued his niece, Mary Trump, for leaking his tax records to the New York Times.

She had signed an NDA as part of a family deal, and she broke it. Mary tried the exact same anti-SLAPP play Tompkins is using now. A New York judge shot it down, ruling that holding someone to a contract they signed isn’t what anti-SLAPP law is for.

G-Unit used that ruling to go straight at Tompkins’ free speech defense.

The Trump citation is just one piece of a bigger push by G-Unit in this case. They’re moving to throw out eight of Tompkins’ counterclaims and six of her affirmative defenses all at once. Two of those defenses are already finished.

Tompkins never replied to G-Unit’s challenge to her unclean hands and lack-of-consideration defenses. In the New York court, staying quiet on a legal argument means you’ve given it up. She lost both without G-Unit having to make a single argument about them.

The whole battle traces back to a deal Tompkins signed with G-Unit Books in 2007. She gave up the rights to her life story in exchange for a cash advance.

As AllHipHop has reported, Tompkins says she only signed because she was scared, broke and had no real choice. G-Unit says her 2023 and 2025 videos and interviews eroded the deal’s value. The company wants at least $1 million to cover its losses.

Judge Robert R. Reed is presiding over the case, and no ruling date has been set on the motion to dismiss yet.