A federal judge in Miami on Saturday dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, ruling that the president failed to prove the newspaper acted with actual malice when it reported on his alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The dismissal, issued with prejudice, permanently ends the case at the trial-court level — the second time the judge has thrown it out.
The Ruling
U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the Southern District of Florida issued a 20-page ruling dismissing Trump's amended complaint, according to reports from the Associated Press and other outlets. The judge found that Trump had not shown the defendants made defamatory statements with actual malice, the legal standard public figures must meet to win a defamation case.
In unusually blunt language, Gayles wrote that the president was "grasping at straws" and said the lawsuit had attempted to "manufacture" flaws in the Journal's investigative reporting. He found Trump's allegations of malice to be conclusory and inconsistent, and concluded that the amended complaint failed to demonstrate that the newspaper knowingly published false information or recklessly disregarded whether it was true.
Because the dismissal was issued with prejudice, Trump cannot refile the same claims in the district court. The ruling also opens the door for the Journal to seek attorneys' fees within 30 days, according to one report on the decision.
A spokesperson for Trump said he will continue to press forward in his lawsuit against the Journal and the other defendants, CBS News reported, though the path forward after a with-prejudice dismissal would be an appeal rather than a new filing.
The Letter at the Center of the Case
The lawsuit grew out of a Wall Street Journal report published last year describing a sexually suggestive letter and drawing that the paper said bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter was reportedly collected by Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite later convicted of sex trafficking, as part of the birthday album assembled years before Epstein was first arrested in 2006.
Trump sued in July 2025, a day after the Journal's report appeared, accusing the paper, its parent company Dow Jones, Murdoch, and its reporters of having "knowingly and recklessly" published "numerous false, defamatory, and disparaging statements." The suit alleged the coverage caused "overwhelming financial and reputational harm" and sought at least $10 billion in damages.
Trump has consistently denied writing the letter. The Journal has stood by its reporting. The judge's ruling did not decide whether the letter was authentic; instead, it turned on whether Trump had adequately alleged that the Journal published its story knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth — the bar the Supreme Court set for public figures in its landmark 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
A Second Dismissal
Saturday's ruling was not the first time the case was thrown out. Gayles previously dismissed the suit in April 2026, ruling that Trump had failed to argue the article was published with malicious intent. The judge gave the president's legal team a chance to file an amended complaint, which they did in May.
The amended complaint fared no better. In his new ruling, Gayles rejected the argument that Trump's denial of the letter should have prevented publication, citing First Amendment protections and the Sullivan standard. The judge concluded that the revised filing still did not meet the legal standard for a public figure's defamation claim.
The case is one of several high-profile defamation battles Trump has pursued against major news organizations. In a separate $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC, a federal judge last month ordered Trump to sit for a deposition by December 11 or face dismissal of that case, after he canceled a previously agreed October date. The BBC has admitted that edits in a 2024 documentary were misleading but denies defamation liability.
What This Means
The ruling is a significant legal victory for the Journal and a reminder of how difficult it is for a public figure — especially a sitting president — to win a defamation case in the United States. Under the Sullivan standard, it is not enough for a public figure to show that a story was wrong or damaging. The plaintiff must show the publisher knew the story was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, a deliberately high bar designed to protect aggressive reporting on powerful people.
For news organizations, the decision reinforces that standard at a moment when the president has repeatedly used litigation against media outlets. The judge's language — accusing the suit of trying to "manufacture" flaws in the reporting — was a pointed rejection of the idea that a president's denial alone can turn an unfavorable story into a defamation claim.
For Trump, the loss removes one of his most prominent legal weapons against a news organization that has published a string of unflattering stories about his past. His spokesperson's promise to press forward suggests the fight may continue on appeal, but the with-prejudice dismissal means the case as filed is over in Miami.
What Happens Next
The immediate question is whether Trump appeals the dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. An appeal would put the same actual-malice questions before a higher court, and the Journal's reporting would again be at the center of the dispute. The Journal, meanwhile, has a window to seek its attorneys' fees from the litigation.
The ruling also lands just days before the November 3 midterm elections, in which control of Congress is at stake. Trump has made his battles with the press a recurring theme of his public appearances, and the dismissal is likely to feature in that debate — with his supporters framing it as evidence of a biased judiciary and his critics pointing to it as proof that the courts are holding the line on press freedom.
Whatever comes next, Saturday's decision closes a chapter that began with a birthday album from 2003 and a lawsuit filed in the heat of a news cycle in July 2025. The letter itself remains disputed. But in a Miami courtroom, the legal case built around it has now failed twice.
Post a Comment