Judge Permanently Dismisses Trump's $10 Billion Libel Case Against Wall Street Journal
A federal judge ruled the president failed to prove actual malice in his lawsuit over an article detailing his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
By Bianca Ricci ·
U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami permanently dismissed Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media executive Rupert Murdoch on Saturday. The judge ruled with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled and the dismissal stands as final. This decision ends a legal battle that has spanned several months and involved two separate attempts by the president to sue the news organization.
Gayles determined that Trump did not meet the legal standard required to prove the defendants acted with actual malice. The ruling stated that the lawsuit attempted to manufacture flaws in the Journal’s investigative reporting. The judge described the president’s legal argument as grasping at straws. This outcome marks a distinct victory for the news outlet in a dispute over how it reported on the former finance mogul’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
The lawsuit centered on a story published by the Journal in 2025. The article described a sexually suggestive letter and a drawing that bore Trump’s name. These items were reportedly included in a birthday album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate, collected the material years before Epstein’s first arrest in 2006. The letter contained text framed by a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman. It concluded with the words, Happy Birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret.
Trump denied writing the letter. He characterized the Journal’s reporting as false, malicious, and defamatory. His legal team argued that the paper and its reporters knowingly and recklessly published numerous false statements. The complaint alleged that the reporting caused overwhelming financial and reputational harm to the president. The suit was initially filed in federal court in Miami.
Gayles had previously dismissed the original version of the suit in April. He found that Trump failed to adequately argue that the article was published with malicious intent. The judge granted Trump permission to file an amended complaint, which the president’s team submitted in May. Saturday’s ruling addresses that second attempt. Gayles cited the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That ruling establishes that public figures must prove a media outlet knowingly published false information or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
In his written opinion, Gayles noted that the amended complaint failed to plead actual malice properly. He described the allegations regarding malice as conclusory and vague. The judge pointed out that some claims were inconsistent with the article itself and often irrelevant to whether the defendants knew the statements were false. The ruling emphasized that the Journal did not ignore or minimize Trump’s denial. The article informed readers that the president decried the letter as a fake and denied writing it.
The dismissal adds to a series of legal conflicts between the administration and news organizations. Trump has pursued lawsuits against the BBC, The Associated Press, and CNN. He is also in disputes with MS NOW and Politico, which are suing for restored access after being banished from the White House in mid-September. Trump has frequently used the term fake news to describe outlets that publish stories he objects to. The White House did not immediately provide a public reaction to Saturday’s decision or respond to requests for comment.
Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell in August 2019. He was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges at the time. The Journal’s investigation into the birthday album was part of its broader reporting on Epstein’s network. The permanent dismissal concludes the specific legal challenge to that reporting. The judge also found that several other allegations in the lawsuit lacked merit.
The case was heard in the Southern District of Florida. Gayles’s decision relies on established libel law principles regarding public figures. The ruling does not address other potential claims or related disputes. It specifically targets the defamation claims against the Journal and Murdoch based on the 2003 birthday album story.
Source: WCBE
