Judge dismisses Trump’s US$10 billion Wall Street Journal lawsuit over Epstein report

Lead

A federal judge in Florida has dismissed President Donald Trump's US$10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch over an article about a letter linked to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. The ruling, issued Monday, found that the complaint did not meet the legal standard of "actual malice" required for public figures to succeed in defamation claims.

The lawsuit, filed in July, centered on a Journal article published July 17, 2025, which reported that a sexually suggestive letter bearing Trump's signature was included in a 2003 birthday album compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday. Trump denied writing the letter and called the story "false, malicious and defamatory."

Coverage Comparison

Reports of the dismissal were carried by multiple outlets, including ABC Australia, The Guardian, the South China Morning Post, and The Hindu. While all sources agreed on the core facts — the dismissal, the judge's name, and the deadline for refiling — some differences emerged in framing and detail.

ABC Australia emphasized that the judge's decision was based on the "actual malice" standard, noting that the Journal had reached out to Trump for comment before publication and printed his denial, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. The Guardian highlighted Trump's personal call to Murdoch attempting to prevent publication, and noted that the Journal did not initially publish the image of the letter; it was later released by the House Oversight Committee. The South China Morning Post and The Hindu provided briefer accounts but were consistent on the key facts.

One notable difference: The Guardian described the letter as "bawdy" and "lewd," while other outlets used terms like "sexually suggestive." The Guardian also mentioned an active separate lawsuit Trump has against the BBC over documentary editing, a detail not present in other reports.

Key Claims

• The lawsuit and its basis: Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over a story about his ties to Epstein. The article described a letter, reportedly bearing Trump's signature, that was part of a 2003 album compiled for Epstein's birthday. Multiple sources confirmed.

• The ruling: US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles in Florida dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the complaint "fails to adequately allege actual malice," the standard for defamation cases involving public figures. The judge wrote that the complaint "comes nowhere close to this standard." Reported consistently across all sources.

• The refiling opportunity: Judge Gayles gave Trump until April 27 to file an amended complaint, which would need to include additional evidence that the Journal published the article knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Confirmed by ABC Australia, The Guardian, and the South China Morning Post.

• The Journal's defense: Lawyers for the Journal and Murdoch argued that the article was accurate and did not meet the bar for defamation. The judge noted that the Journal's reporters reached out to Trump for comment and printed his denial, which undercut claims of malice. Reported by ABC Australia and The Guardian.

• The letter's release: The letter was subsequently released publicly by Congress, which subpoenaed records from Epstein's estate. Trump denied authorship. Mentioned by the South China Morning Post and The Guardian.

Perspectives

Trump's perspective: Trump has denied writing the letter, calling it "fake." His lawsuit argued that the publication damaged his reputation and that the Journal acted with actual malice. He has reportedly been personally involved in challenging media coverage of his ties to Epstein, calling Murdoch before publication. The dismissal allows him to pursue the case further, but he must now provide additional evidence to meet the high legal bar.

The Wall Street Journal's perspective: The Journal has defended the accuracy of its article, with parent company Dow Jones stating the report was correct. The newspaper's lawyers argued that the story was true and that the authors did not publish with knowledge of falsity. The judge's ruling appears to validate their position that they acted responsibly, including by seeking comment from Trump and publishing his denial.

Legal observers' perspective: The ruling underscores the difficulty public figures face in winning defamation suits, particularly against established news organizations. The "actual malice" standard requires proof that the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth — a high bar that Judge Gayles said was not met here. The case may continue if Trump can produce new evidence, but the initial dismissal signals the court's view of the strength of the Journal's reporting.

Political context: ABC Australia noted that Trump's relationship with Epstein has been "a political headache for the president." The dismissal comes amid broader scrutiny of the Epstein files and related personnel changes. However, details about Trump firing Attorney-General Pam Bondi over the Epstein files were carried by only a single source and remain unverified.

Correction and timeline: The article was published on July 17, 2025. The lawsuit was filed shortly after. The dismissal was issued on April 13, 2026, with the refiling deadline set for April 27, 2026.