Federal Judge Dismisses Trump’s $10 Billion Defamation Suit Against Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch Over Epstein Birthday Letter Story
A federal judge in Florida dismissed former president Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch over a Journal article about a sexually suggestive letter said to bear Trump’s signature and to have been included in a 2003 birthday album for Jeffrey Epstein. U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles wrote that Trump failed to plead that the Journal acted with the actual malice required for defamation against a public figure, but he granted Trump leave to file an amended complaint rather than disposing of the matter entirely. The judge also declined at this procedural stage to resolve factual disputes — including whether Trump authored the letter or was a friend of Epstein — saying those are questions for later proceedings.
The Journal story referenced material that Congress later subpoenaed and released publicly, and the courtroom ruling emphasized the limited role of a motion to dismiss in deciding contested facts. Trump’s legal team said they will refile and described the case as a “powerhouse,” while White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated the president’s denial that he drew or signed the image. Observers have framed the decision as another obstacle in Trump’s broader litigation campaign against media organizations; reporting noted previous high-profile settlements involving Trump — including a reported roughly $15 million payment and $1 million in legal fees to ABC, and a separate resolution with CBS/Paramount in another suit.
Reaction on social media underscored the polarized public response: some commentators mocked the suit or labeled the decision predictable, others attacked the judge’s impartiality, and several posts highlighted that the dismissal was procedural and that Trump has an opportunity to amend and refile within the court’s deadline. The mix of legal technicalities, competing factual claims about the disputed letter, and the broader pattern of litigation between Trump and news organizations suggest the dispute is likely to continue even after this initial setback.
📌 Key Facts
- U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles in Florida dismissed Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over reporting tied to Jeffrey Epstein, but granted Trump leave to file an amended complaint.
- The Wall Street Journal article described a sexually suggestive letter said to bear Trump’s signature and to be part of a 2003 album for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday; that album was later subpoenaed and released publicly by Congress.
- Judge Gayles rejected the defendants’ request to treat the article’s statements as true at this stage, writing that whether Trump authored the letter or was Epstein’s friend are factual questions not resolvable on a motion to dismiss.
- The judge found Trump failed to plead that the Wall Street Journal acted with actual malice — a deficiency central to the dismissal but one that could be addressed in an amended complaint.
- Reporters and analysts characterized the ruling as another setback in Trump’s broader effort to manage fallout from release of the Epstein files and as part of a litigation strategy critics say can chill critical reporting.
- Trump’s legal team said he will refile the lawsuit and called it a “powerhouse” case; White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that Trump “did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.”
- The decision was situated within Trump’s wider litigation campaign against media outlets, noting prior settlements such as with ABC (about $15 million plus $1 million in legal fees) and a separate suit against CBS/Paramount over alleged election interference.
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- Identifies the presiding judge as U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles in Florida and notes that he dismissed the case but granted Trump leave to file an amended complaint.
- Clarifies that the Wall Street Journal article described a sexually suggestive letter said to bear Trump’s signature and be part of a 2003 album for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday, which Congress later subpoenaed and released publicly.
- Details that the judge rejected the defendants’ request to rule the article’s statements true at this stage, writing that whether Trump authored the letter or was Epstein’s friend are factual questions not resolvable on a motion to dismiss.
- Adds that the ruling is characterized as another setback in the Trump administration’s broader effort to manage fallout from release of the Epstein files and to use litigation to chill critical reporting.
- Fox article clarifies that Judge Darrin Gayles explicitly held Trump failed to plead that the Wall Street Journal acted with actual malice but allowed him to file an amended complaint.
- Trump’s legal team says he will refile the lawsuit and describes it as a 'powerhouse' case in a statement to Fox News Digital.
- The piece restates White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s prior claim that Trump 'did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it,' and quotes the judge noting that whether Trump authored the letter or was Epstein’s friend are factual questions not decided at this stage.
- The story situates this ruling within Trump’s wider litigation campaign against media outlets, listing prior settlements with ABC (about $15 million plus $1 million in legal fees) and with CBS/Paramount in a separate 'election interference' suit.