Judge Dismisses Trump's $10B Defamation Lawsuit Against Murdoch and WSJ
By John Nada·Apr 13, 2026·4 min read
A federal judge has dismissed Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal, allowing for a potential amended filing.
A federal judge in Florida has dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal. The lawsuit claimed the Journal defamed Trump with a story alleging he sent a 'bawdy' 50th birthday letter to notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. However, Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that Trump did not sufficiently demonstrate that the defendants acted with actual malice in publishing the article. The judge's ruling allows Trump to file an amended lawsuit by April 27, giving him a chance to strengthen his case regarding the letter in question.
Gayles highlighted that public figures like Trump need to establish that defendants had actual malice in their statements. He noted that Trump's complaint fell short of this standard, pointing out that the Journal made efforts to contact Trump and others for comments before publishing. According to the Journal, the disputed article reported on a letter allegedly signed by Trump that contained provocative imagery and was included in an album that Epstein was giving for his 50th birthday. The letter reportedly featured several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, with Trump's signature below, which bore a resemblance to pubic hair, as described by Journal reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo.
Trump's legal team has stated their intent to refile the lawsuit, asserting that they will continue to hold accountable those who disseminate what they term 'Fake News'. This legal battle underscores the complexities of defamation law, particularly for public figures, which could have broader implications for media reporting on high-profile individuals. Judge Gayles emphasized the importance of actual malice in defamation cases involving public figures. He stated that Trump had "not plausibly alleged that the Defendants published the Article with actual malice." The legal standard requires plaintiffs like Trump to show that the defendant acted with knowledge of the statement's falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Gayles noted that Trump's complaint "falls short of pleading actual malice," and commented that the president "comes nowhere close to" the standard for showing that the newspaper deliberately avoided investigating the truth of the statements it published about the letter. The judge's ruling pointed out that the Journal, prior to running the story, contacted Trump, Justice Department officials, and the FBI for comment. Trump's response was a denial of writing the letter, while the Justice Department did not respond, and the FBI declined to comment. This indicates that the defendants made a reasonable effort to investigate the claims before publication, which is a crucial factor in determining actual malice.
The article in question, published on July 17, 2024, raised eyebrows not only because of its content but also due to the associations it drew between Trump and Epstein, a convicted sex offender known for his high-profile connections and illicit activities. The letter was allegedly sent at the request of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's close friend, who has also faced legal repercussions for her involvement in the trafficking of underage girls. The Journal’s reporting included details about the nature of the letter, describing its provocative imagery, which heightened the sensational aspect of the story. In light of these developments, Trump's legal team expressed their commitment to pursue the lawsuit vigorously.
A spokesman for Trump's legal team stated, "President Trump will follow Judge Gayles's ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other Defendants." They indicated that the fight against what they call 'Fake News' would continue, emphasizing their belief in the necessity of accountability for media outlets. The Journal's publisher, Dow Jones & Co., responded positively to the judge's decision, asserting their confidence in the integrity of their reporting. A spokesman for the Journal commented, "We stand behind the reliability, rigor, and accuracy of The Wall Street Journal's reporting," reflecting the belief that their journalistic practices were upheld through this legal challenge. Legal experts observing this case note that it illustrates the complex nature of defamation law, especially regarding public figures.
The requirement to prove actual malice sets a high bar for plaintiffs, which can often protect media entities from liability even when their reporting involves sensitive or potentially damaging information about prominent individuals. The ruling also does not address whether the statements made in the article are true or defamatory, leaving open questions about the implications of this case for both Trump and the media. As this case progresses, it may resonate beyond the immediate parties involved, potentially influencing how media outlets approach reporting on high-profile figures and the legal ramifications of such reporting. The dynamics of power, media scrutiny, and public perception are all at play in this unfolding legal saga, highlighting the intricate balance between free speech and the protection against defamation.