Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Defamation Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Letter

A federal judge in Miami has permanently dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal. The ruling on Saturday ends Trump's legal challenge over the newspaper's reporting on a sexually suggestive birthday letter allegedly sent to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.[1][5]

U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles threw out the case with prejudice, meaning the lawsuit cannot be amended or refiled in the district court. Gayles had previously dismissed the original complaint in April 2026 but allowed Trump's legal team to file a revised version in May.[2][5]

In his 20-page ruling, Gayles determined that the amended complaint still failed to establish "actual malice," the high legal threshold required for public figures pursuing defamation claims. The judge concluded that Trump's attorneys did not plausibly allege the newspaper knowingly or recklessly published false information.[1][2]

"As President Trump has not plausibly alleged that each Defendant made defamatory statements with actual malice, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed," Gayles wrote in the ruling. "And because this is President Trump's second attempt to allege his claims, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate."[1]

The Epstein Birthday Book

The legal dispute originated from a July 2025 article published by The Wall Street Journal. The story described a "bawdy" letter bearing Trump's name that was included in a 238-page album compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003.[1][5]

Trump vehemently denied writing or signing the letter, insisting that the document had been fabricated. Upon filing the initial lawsuit in 2025, he took to social media to label the article "false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS" and sought $10 billion in damages from the publisher.[1][5]

The lawsuit named several high-profile defendants, including the newspaper's parent company Dow Jones, News Corp chairman emeritus Rupert Murdoch, the company's CEO, and the two reporters who authored the story. Trump accused them of orchestrating a deliberate smear campaign to cause him overwhelming financial and reputational harm.[2][4]

In September 2026, the House Oversight Committee released a redacted copy of the disputed birthday-book material obtained directly from Epstein's estate. The 238-page album contained messages from many of Epstein's associates, including the letter carrying a signature resembling the president's.[1][2]

The document's authenticity remained fiercely contested throughout the proceedings, and Gayles's ruling on Saturday did not make a determination regarding who actually authored the letter. Instead, the court focused entirely on whether the newspaper had met the legal threshold for defamation when it published the allegations.[1][2]

Journalistic Standards and Malice

Throughout the litigation, the court repeatedly pointed to the newspaper's efforts to obtain Trump's response before publication. The inclusion of his direct denials in the original article served as evidence that the reporters had followed appropriate journalistic standards rather than acting with reckless disregard for the truth.[1][5]

Gayles rejected the president's argument that The Wall Street Journal should have withheld its story simply because he denied writing the letter. The judge noted that imposing such a requirement on the press would fundamentally violate First Amendment protections and hinder public discourse.[3]

"Were that the law, any time a public figure or his team denies an accusation, journalists would be immediately blocked from publishing negative or contradictory press," Gayles wrote. He characterized the lawsuit's attempts to manufacture flaws in the newspaper's investigative reporting as "grasping at straws."[2][3]

The revised complaint filed in May had raised additional objections to the newspaper's investigation, alleging that the reporters had been reckless in not showing how they received and verified the letter. However, Gayles found those allegations to be "conclusory" and "vague," failing to meet the strict actual malice standard.[4][5]

Furthermore, Gayles noted that Trump had failed to identify the specific financial losses required to support one of his defamation theories. The lawsuit had claimed the article caused overwhelming financial harm, but the amended complaint lacked the concrete evidence necessary to sustain that argument in federal court.[4][5]

A spokesperson for Dow Jones welcomed the dismissal, stating that the company was pleased with the court's decision. The publisher had previously expressed full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of its reporting, which earned the newspaper a finalist spot for the 2026 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.[1][5]

Appeals and Ongoing Litigation

Despite the permanent dismissal at the district court level, the legal battle may continue in the appellate courts. A spokesperson for Trump's legal team confirmed their intention to appeal the ruling, signaling that the president will not abandon the high-stakes litigation.[2][5]

"President Trump will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants," the spokesperson said in a statement. "The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions."[1][2]

The Wall Street Journal case is one of several defamation lawsuits Trump has pursued against major media organizations during his second term. He currently has a $15 billion defamation case pending against The New York Times over its coverage of his 2024 campaign, which a judge allowed him to revise in August.[3]

Late last year, Trump also sued the BBC for $10 billion over its editing of his January 6, 2021, speech in a documentary about the Capitol attack. The British broadcaster has vowed to defend the case in court, while legal experts warn that such protracted litigation can pressure news outlets and chill aggressive reporting.[3]

Trump's aggressive litigation strategy extends beyond traditional media outlets. Just one month before taking office, he sued Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register over a poll released days before the 2024 election, though a judge dismissed that lawsuit with prejudice in September.[3]

The defendants in the Wall Street Journal case may now pursue attorney's fees in further proceedings before Judge Gayles. As the appellate process looms, the ruling stands as a significant reinforcement of the actual malice standard established to protect investigative journalism involving public figures.[5]