Judge permanently dismisses Trump’s Wall Street Journal lawsuit

U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed Trump’s lawsuit with prejudice, meaning he cannot bring the same claims again. The ruling found that Trump’s amended complaint did not adequately allege that the Journal and the other defendants published defamatory statements with actual malice, the standard for public figures pursuing defamation cases.

The case concerned a Journal story published in 2025 about a letter bearing Trump’s name in a birthday album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. The paper described a sexually suggestive drawing and a message. Trump denied writing the letter and alleged the Journal knowingly published false claims.

Gayles had dismissed Trump’s initial complaint in April but allowed him to amend it. In the latest ruling, he said the revised allegations still fell short. He also rejected Trump’s contention that the Journal ought to have held back its article following Trump’s denial that he wrote it, saying that approach would restrict journalists’ ability to publish contested accounts about public figures.

Trump sued the Journal, its parent companies, Rupert Murdoch and two reporters, seeking $10 billion. A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said he would continue pursuing the case, and a source familiar with his legal strategy said an appeal was likely. Dow Jones, which owns the Journal, said it was pleased with the decision.

Judge rejects Trump’s bid to punish Journal over Epstein reporting

The ruling is a setback for Trump’s effort to use a $10 billion lawsuit against a news organization over a story he disputes. U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed the case with prejudice, preventing Trump from bringing the same claims again, after finding his revised complaint still failed to adequately allege actual malice.

The Journal’s 2025 story described a sexually suggestive letter bearing Trump’s name in a 2003 birthday album for Jeffrey Epstein. Trump denied writing it and argued the paper should not have published the story after his denial. Gayles rejected that position, warning that treating a public figure’s denial as a bar to publication would constrain reporting on disputed matters.

The decision underscores the protections journalists have when reporting about powerful public figures. Trump had sued the Journal, its parent companies, Rupert Murdoch and two reporters. His legal team said he would press ahead, and a source familiar with his strategy said an appeal was likely. The case puts the stakes of press freedom in sharp relief: a president’s displeasure with critical coverage cannot itself replace the legal showing required to win a defamation case.

Judge shields Journal after Trump challenges disputed Epstein letter story

A judge has permanently shut down Trump’s lawsuit over a Journal story about a 2003 birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein—even though Trump says he did not write it. U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that Trump’s revised complaint still did not adequately allege that the paper and other defendants knowingly published falsehoods or recklessly disregarded the truth.

Trump argued the Journal should have held its article until he disputed authorship of the letter. Gayles rejected that demand, saying it would prevent journalists from publishing negative or conflicting reporting whenever a public figure disputed an accusation. That principle gives the press broad room to publish contested stories, even when the subject is the sitting president.

Trump sought $10 billion from the Journal, its parent companies, Rupert Murdoch and two reporters. Gayles had previously allowed Trump to revise his complaint, but this second attempt was dismissed with prejudice. Trump’s legal team says it will continue the fight, and an appeal is considered likely. The ruling leaves Trump unable to refile the same claims, while affirming that his denial alone does not establish that the Journal acted unlawfully.