A federal judge on Saturday permanently dismissed President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch over the newspaper's reporting on an alleged birthday letter to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, ruling that Trump again failed to prove the defendants acted with actual malice. The dismissal with prejudice means Trump cannot refile the suit in district court, though his legal team said the president plans to appeal.
U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami ruled Saturday that Trump's amended complaint "attempts to manufacture flaws with the investigation" and "not plausibly alleged that the Defendants published the Article with actual malice," according to the 20-page ruling.
The lawsuit challenged a July 2025 Wall Street Journal article that reported on a letter bearing Trump's signature included in a compilation of letters for Epstein's 50th birthday. The article described the letter as having "several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman" with Trump's signature "a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair." Trump has denied writing the letter, saying "This is not me. This is a fake thing."
Gayles first dismissed the suit in April 2026 but allowed Trump to file an amended complaint. The amended version included new claims, including an allegation that Murdoch told Trump “I will handle it” on a phone call about the article. Gayles rejected each argument, writing that “the allegations regarding malice are conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant.”
The judge also noted that the Journal conducted a "thoughtful and detailed investigation" and said allowing public figures to block unfavorable reporting by denying its accuracy "runs afoul of the First Amendment."
A spokesman for Trump's legal team said in a statement: "President Trump will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants. The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions."
The ruling is the latest legal setback for Trump in his litigation against media organizations. A separate federal judge on Oct. 22 ordered Trump to sit for a deposition in his defamation lawsuit against the BBC.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The ruling reinforces the high legal standard for defamation claims brought by public figures, with the court finding no evidence of actual malice.
- The dismissal with prejudice ends the case in district court, leaving appeal as Trump's only remaining legal option.
- The decision is part of a broader pattern of litigation between Trump and major news organizations over reporting on his ties to Epstein.
Background
The lawsuit originated from a July 2025 Wall Street Journal article reporting that a letter allegedly from Trump was included in a collection for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. Trump, who has denied writing the letter and described it as fake, filed a defamation suit seeking damages. The court first dismissed the suit in April 2026, allowing Trump to amend his complaint. The amended complaint was dismissed Saturday.
Key Perspectives
Judge Darrin Gayles: Ruled that Trump failed to prove actual malice, describing his allegations as "conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant."
Trump spokesman: Said the president "will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit" and hold accountable those who "mislead the American People with Fake News and smears."
What to Watch
- Trump's appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and whether it challenges the application of the actual malice standard.
- The scheduled deposition in Trump's separate defamation lawsuit against the BBC.
- Any further media reporting on Trump's relationship with Epstein that could prompt additional legal action.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 3 sources: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe judge dismissed Trump’s defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch with prejudice, barring another amended filing in district court.US Top News and Analysis: “By dismissing the suit with prejudice, Trump cannot file another amended version of the lawsuit in the district court.”
- Partly supportedThe judge ruled that Trump failed to prove the defendants acted with actual malice.Reason Magazine: “Here, the Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice.”
- SupportedTrump’s legal team said he plans to appeal the ruling.US Top News and Analysis: “However, a spokesman for Trump's legal team told CNBC on Saturday that the president plans to appeal the ruling.”
- SupportedGayles wrote that the amended complaint “attempts to manufacture flaws with the investigation.”US Top News and Analysis: “"Grasping at straws, the Amended Complaint attempts to manufacture flaws with the investigation," Gayles wrote in the 20-page ruling”
- SupportedGayles wrote that Trump had “not plausibly alleged that the Defendants published the Article with actual malice.”US Top News and Analysis: “had "not plausibly alleged that the Defendants published the Article with actual malice."”
- SupportedThe Journal described the letter as containing “several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman.”US Top News and Analysis: “The article said the letter "contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker."”
- SupportedTrump denied writing the letter, saying, “This is not me. This is a fake thing.”US Top News and Analysis: “Trump angrily denied writing the letter, saying, "This is not me. This is a fake thing."”
- SupportedThe amended lawsuit alleged that Murdoch told Trump “I will handle it” on a phone call about the article.US Top News and Analysis: “The amended lawsuit contained new details and claims, including that Murdoch told Trump "I will handle it" on a phone call about an article describing a birthday letter to Epstein”
- SupportedGayles described the malice allegations as “conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant.”Reason Magazine: “Indeed, the allegations regarding malice are 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.”
- SupportedA spokesman for Trump’s legal team said, “President Trump will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants. The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions.”US Top News and Analysis: “"President Trump will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants. The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions," the spokesman said in a statement.”
- SupportedGayles first dismissed the suit in April 2026 and allowed Trump to file an amended complaint.Axios: “Gayles tossed the initial suit last April, but allowed Trump to file an amended complaint”
- SupportedA separate federal judge ordered Trump on Oct. 22 to sit for a deposition in his defamation lawsuit against the BBC.US Top News and Analysis: “A different federal judge on Oct. 22 ordered Trump to sit for a deposition in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC by Dec. 11.”