President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal was dismissed by a federal judge in Florida on Monday. The judge found that the lawsuit did not even meet the threshold requirements for a defamation claim involving a public figure. US District Judge Darrin Gayles made a blunt ruling, stating that Trump’s legal team had “nowhere close” to proving the newspaper had acted maliciously. Trump claimed the case was far from over on Truth Social within hours.
The lawsuit, which was filed last summer, was based on a Wall Street Journal article from July 2025 that claimed Trump’s name could be found in a birthday book given to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, and that the message purportedly written by Trump contained a hand-drawn picture of a nude woman along with a reference to a “secret.” Trump called the document “fake” and denied writing it. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which owns the Journal through its Dow Jones subsidiary, defended its reporting. The ensuing legal dispute was unusual in its scope, according to legal experts; CNN reported that it could not find any previous example of a sitting US president suing a major news organization over a particular story.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Trump v. Dow Jones & Company / The Wall Street Journal |
| Plaintiff | President Donald J. Trump |
| Defendants | The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, Rupert Murdoch |
| Filed | July 2025 |
| Dismissed | April 13, 2026 |
| Presiding Judge | US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles (appointed by President Obama) |
| Damages Sought | $10 billion (approximately £7.4 billion / €8.5 billion) |
| Legal Basis | Defamation |
| Core Allegation | WSJ report claimed Trump sent a lewd birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 |
| Dismissal Type | Without prejudice (Trump permitted to refile) |
| Refiling Deadline | April 27, 2026 |
| Trump’s Response | Announced plans to refile via Truth Social |
| WSJ Response | Dow Jones called the dismissal vindication; stood behind its reporting |
In a 17-page decision, Judge Gayles, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, concluded that Trump had not made a credible claim that the Journal published the article knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was. Public figures must prove not only that a published statement was untrue, but also that the publisher acted with what courts refer to as “actual malice.” The ruling pointed out that the Journal’s initial report contained Trump’s denial and detailed the newspaper’s attempts to get comment from the FBI, the White House, and the Justice Department—procedural actions that typically work against rather than in favor of a finding of malice. Trump’s complaint, according to Gayles, was based on “formulaic” claims that failed to hold up when examined.
Trump is still able to file an amended complaint because the dismissal was made without prejudice. His legal team swiftly made it clear that they would do just that, calling the lawsuit a “powerhouse” case in a statement and pledging to refile before the deadline of April 27. The judge’s decision was described as a “suggested re-filing” rather than a defeat in Trump’s own Truth Social post. Observing this kind of legal wrangling gives one the impression that the plaintiff may care more about the ongoing public pressure that litigation creates than the court’s decision.
This case should be considered in light of Trump’s larger history of media lawsuits since taking office again. In September of last year, he filed a lawsuit against The New York Times, claiming that the publication had defamed his business record. The lawsuit was nearly instantly dismissed as “improper and impermissible,” but a revised complaint is currently being considered for mediation. Additionally, he filed a defamation lawsuit against the BBC, which has stated that it plans to fully defend itself. The Journal lawsuit is noteworthy because it specifically targets Murdoch’s business and because, in contrast to a number of other news outlets that reached a settlement with Trump following the 2024 election, Murdoch has expressed no interest in doing so. In a succinct but assured statement on Monday, the Journal’s publisher affirmed the “reliability, rigor and accuracy” of its reporting. Analysts characterize the 95-year-old
Murdoch’s relationship with Trump as complex, citing numerous meetings at the White House in recent months as well as a news outlet that has refused to modify its coverage in order to avoid legal action.
No monetary amount can adequately convey the level of political sensitivity added by the Epstein thread that runs through all of this. Trump’s second term has been repeatedly complicated by Epstein, the wealthy financier who passed away in a New York prison cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Over the past year, the Justice Department has made numerous files pertaining to Epstein public, and Trump is frequently mentioned in them despite not being charged with any crimes. Together, the birthday book, the WSJ article, and this lawsuit have kept the Epstein connection in the public eye for a lot longer than a subdued reaction might have. Whether the decision to sue the Journal was primarily a legal tactic or something more reflexive, such as a public statement that the story would be challenged at all costs, is still up for debate.
It’s genuinely unclear what will happen next. In order to address the judge’s particular concerns regarding actual malice, Trump’s attorneys have two weeks to draft an amended complaint. It’s unclear if they can create a legally sound defense in cases where the initial one was unsuccessful. For its part, The Journal doesn’t appear to be giving up. This is not the end of the story. It simply went on to the following round.
