Federal Judge Dismisses Trump’s $10B Defamation Suit Against WSJ Over Epstein Story

A federal judge in Miami dismissed President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal on Monday, ruling that Trump failed to plausibly allege the paper acted with “actual malice” in a 2025 story about a bawdy birthday greeting to Jeffrey Epstein that the Journal attributed to him nytimes +1. The case was thrown out without prejudice, giving Trump until April 27 to file an amended complaint npr.

The lawsuit targeted Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson and two Journal reporters over a July 17, 2025 article describing a 2003 entry in Epstein’s “birthday album” that included a crude drawing of a naked woman and a note appearing to bear Trump’s signature cnbc +1. Trump denied writing the message, called the letter a fake and claimed the Journal’s reporting inflicted massive reputational harm, seeking $10 billion in damages nytimes +1.

Judge Reaffirms High ‘Actual Malice’ Bar for Public Figures

In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles said Trump’s complaint “comes nowhere close” to meeting the constitutional standard that public figures must satisfy to pursue defamation claims against the press nytimes. Under the landmark 1964 Supreme Court ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Trump had to allege specific facts showing the Journal either knew the birthday letter story was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Gayles found instead that Trump offered “conclusory” assertions that the defendants ignored contrary evidence, while the article itself showed the reporters sought comment from Trump, published his denial and attempted to contact law enforcement officials about the document usatoday. Those steps, the judge wrote, rebutted any inference of actual malice at the pleading stage and justified ending the case before costly discovery. The ruling did not decide whether the Journal’s reporting was accurate, focusing solely on the sufficiency of Trump’s allegations about the defendants’ state of mind nytimes.

Part of a Broader Clash Between Trump and the Media

The dismissal marked another setback in Trump’s broader legal campaign against major news organizations. He has brought a series of multibillion‑dollar defamation suits in recent years, including against The New York Times and the BBC, frequently accusing outlets of “Fake News” and bias while seeking large damages and retractions cnbc +1. Courts have repeatedly responded by scrutinizing whether his complaints meet the demanding actual malice standard, with several cases tossed out at early stages on similar grounds cnn.

Trump’s spokesman said he would “follow Judge Gayles’s ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit” and vowed to continue holding media to account npr. A Wall Street Journal spokesperson said the company was pleased with the decision and “stands behind the reliability, rigor and accuracy” of its reporting npr. Legal analysts noted that while Trump still can amend his complaint, he would likely need new, concrete evidence about the Journal’s internal decision‑making to revive the case nytimes +1.

The Bigger Picture

The ruling underscored how federal courts continue to use the Sullivan framework as a gatekeeper in high-profile clashes between public figures and the press, limiting defamation suits that lack detailed factual allegations about a newsroom’s knowledge or recklessness nytimes +1. As political figures increasingly turn to massive defamation claims as a weapon against critical coverage, Monday’s decision signaled that, at least for now, longstanding First Amendment protections for investigative reporting remain firmly in place.