MIAMI — A federal judge has permanently dismissed U.S. President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch. The legal challenge centered on a highly controversial report detailing a suggestive letter allegedly sent by Trump to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
In a decisive 20-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles tossed out the case “with prejudice.” This legal designation permanently blocks the president from amending or refiling his claims against the newspaper. The decision deals a definitive blow to Trump’s multiyear legal campaign against the media outlet.
The Core of the Dispute: A ‘Bawdy’ Birthday Note
The legal warfare erupted after The Wall Street Journal published an exclusive report titled, “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.”
The article described a 238-page “birthday book” compiled for Epstein in 2003 by his convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. According to the report, a page bearing Trump’s name features typewritten dialogue between “Donald” and “Jeffrey” framed inside a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman. The text included joking phrases such as “enigmas never age” and concluded with: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.” The report noted that Trump’s signature was scrawled over the drawing’s pelvic region.
Trump vehemently denied any involvement with the note, proclaiming that he “never wrote a picture” in his life and asserting the document was a complete fabrication. Before publication, Trump personally contacted Rupert Murdoch—the chairman emeritus of the Journal’s parent company, News Corp—in a futile effort to kill the story. Following its release, Trump filed a massive lawsuit targeting Dow Jones, News Corp, Murdoch, and the individual reporters. A redacted version of the birthday book was later obtained via subpoena and released publicly by the House Oversight Committee.
Failing the First Amendment Threshold
Defamation claims brought by public figures in the United States must clear a formidable constitutional hurdle established by the Supreme Court: “actual malice.” To win, Trump’s legal team had to prove the Journal published the article knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Judge Gayles determined that Trump’s beefed-up amended complaint failed to meet that standard. The judge noted several critical flaws in the president’s legal logic:
- Manufacturing Flaws: Gayles wrote that the Journal conducted a “thoughtful and detailed investigation” and accused Trump’s legal team of “grasping at straws” to invent errors in the reporters’ methodology.
- The Power of Denial: Trump’s lawyers argued that because the president denied writing the note before the article ran, journalists should have abandoned the story. Gayles rejected this, writing that if simple denials blocked reporting, public figures could easily censor negative press—a dynamic that “runs afoul of the First Amendment” and American free speech.
- Fair Representation: The court emphasized that the Journal did not bury or ignore Trump’s defense; it explicitly highlighted his position that the letter was a “fake” in the body of the article.
A Defiant Response Amid Political Pressure
A spokesperson for Dow Jones expressed satisfaction with the definitive ruling, reiterating that the organization stands firmly behind the rigor and accuracy of its journalism.
The decision marks another severe setback for Trump’s broader strategy of using the legal system to challenge critical press coverage. Earlier, a federal judge similarly dismissed a multi-billion dollar defamation suit filed by Trump’s social media company against The Washington Post.
Despite the permanent dismissal, Trump’s camp signaled they have no intention of retreating quietly. A spokesperson for the president’s legal team stated that Trump will appeal the decision to a higher court, promising to “continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable.” For now, the ruling serves as an emphatic judicial defense of the baseline protections granted to the American free press.