Judge Permanently Dismisses Trump's $10 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Against The Wall Street Journal

A federal judge has definitively thrown out United States President Donald Trump’s multi-billion dollar defamation lawsuit against media mogul Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal. US District Judge Darrin Gayles concluded on Saturday that the president had not met the “actual malice” standard necessary for defamation claims.

Under US law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant published a defamatory statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth. Judge Gayles found that Trump’s $10 billion case against The Wall Street Journal was unfounded, stating, “The Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice.” He further noted that the allegations regarding malice were “conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article and often irrelevant to whether Defendants knew or should have known that the statements in the Article were purportedly false.” The judge even suggested that Trump’s legal team had attempted to “manufacture flaws with the investigation” detailed in The Wall Street Journal’s reporting.

The lawsuit originated from coverage that connected Trump to the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On July 17, 2025, The Wall Street Journal published an exclusive report detailing a sexually suggestive birthday note gifted to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003, which was part of a collection of congratulatory letters. These letters were reportedly gathered by Ghislaine Maxwell, a disgraced British socialite currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in Epstein’s sex-trafficking scheme.

The note attributed to Trump featured typed text within a hand-drawn outline resembling a curvaceous woman, with Trump’s signature placed near the pelvic region. Trump has strongly denied any responsibility for the text, signature, or artwork. A copy of the birthday letter was subsequently released by the House Oversight Committee. The Wall Street Journal’s article was published during a period of intense scrutiny for Trump’s second administration regarding its handling of documents related to Epstein’s alleged sex crimes, despite promises of transparency. Critics had also questioned the nature of the relationship between Trump and Epstein, who were known to have socialized together and who was associated with powerful figures in politics, academia, and business.

Trump stated in 2025 that he had ended his association with Epstein after the financier allegedly “stole” female employees from his Mar-a-Lago resort. Epstein was convicted of soliciting a minor for sex in Florida in 2008 and served 13 months in jail. In 2019, he faced federal sex-trafficking charges but died in his New York City jail cell before his trial, a death later ruled a suicide. Legal advocates estimate that Epstein’s victims number in the hundreds.

Following the release of The Wall Street Journal report, Trump characterized the newspaper’s coverage as “false, malicious, and defamatory.” His lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami on July 18, 2025, accused the paper and its reporters of having “knowingly and recklessly” published “numerous false, defamatory, and disparaging statements,” alleging “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” to the president. Two journalists associated with the article were named as defendants.

Judge Gayles initially dismissed the defamation lawsuit in April, ruling that Trump had failed to prove the reporting was motivated by “actual malice.” However, this initial ruling allowed Trump the opportunity to refile his complaint, which he did in May. The updated lawsuit contended that The Wall Street Journal had acted recklessly by not disclosing how reporters had obtained and verified the letter. Saturday’s ruling in Miami represents a final dismissal of Trump’s attempt to litigate the matter. Judge Gayles’s decision dismisses the case “with prejudice,” effectively preventing any future legal action on this issue. Trump is involved in other ongoing defamation cases against different media organizations, including the BBC and The New York Times.