A federal judge in Florida on Saturday dismissed with prejudice President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, ruling that Trump failed to prove the defendants acted with actual malice in reporting on his alleged 2003 birthday letter to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles marks the second time the lawsuit has been dismissed, following an initial ruling in April that allowed Trump to revise his complaint. The amended lawsuit, filed in Miami, was also rejected after the judge determined Trump had not met the legal threshold for defamation claims by public figures. The ruling prevents Trump from refiling the case in the same district court, though he retains the option to seek appellate review.
Core Facts of the Ruling
- Judge Gayles dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning Trump cannot amend or refile the case in the same court.
- The ruling stated Trump failed to demonstrate that the Wall Street Journal or Murdoch published the 2025 report with actual malice, a legal standard requiring proof of reckless disregard for the truth.
- The article in question, published by the Wall Street Journal, alleged Trump sent Epstein a bawdy birthday letter in 2003, including a drawing of a naked woman with Trump’s signature replacing pubic hair.
Legal Rationale and Court Findings
Judge Gayles’ decision emphasized that Trump’s amended complaint did not plausibly allege actual malice, a requirement for public figures under U.S. defamation law. The ruling noted that the Wall Street Journal had sought Trump’s response before publication and included his denials, undermining claims of reckless disregard.
The court described Trump’s arguments as "grasping at straws" and attempting to "manufacture flaws" in the newspaper’s investigation. The judge reiterated that Trump’s failure to meet the legal standard in his initial complaint—filed in April—was not rectified in the amended version.
Trump’s Response and Ongoing Legal Strategy
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team stated that the president "will continue to press forward" in the lawsuit, asserting that the Wall Street Journal and other defendants had misled the public. The statement did not specify whether an appeal would be pursued.
The Wall Street Journal has not publicly commented on the ruling. The newspaper’s reporting included a copy of the alleged letter, which featured a dialogue between Trump and Epstein, ending with Trump’s signature on the drawing.
Background and Context
The lawsuit stemmed from a July 2025 Wall Street Journal investigation that published Trump’s alleged 2003 birthday note to Epstein, a financier convicted of sex trafficking in 2008. The letter, described as "bawdy", included a drawing of a naked woman with Trump’s signature replacing pubic hair. Trump has consistently denied the letter’s authenticity, calling it a hoax.
The case drew significant political attention, with Democrats and some Republicans calling for the release of legal files related to Epstein’s associates. The House Oversight Committee published a copy of the alleged letter in 2025, further fueling public scrutiny.
Implications of the Dismissal
Legal experts note that the ruling reinforces protections for media organizations reporting on public figures, particularly when they follow standard journalistic practices, such as seeking comment from subjects of reports. The decision also highlights the high bar public figures face when pursuing defamation claims under U.S. law.
While the lawsuit is now concluded in the lower court, Trump’s option to appeal to a higher court—such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit—remains open. The outcome of any appeal could further shape the legal landscape for defamation cases involving public officials and media outlets.