Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein birthday letter

A federal judge in Miami permanently dismissed President Donald Trump’s multibillion-dollar defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch on Saturday, 31 October 2026, marking a major legal defeat in the administration's ongoing battles with the press.

The underlying legal action stems from an investigative report published by The Wall Street Journal on 17 July 2025. The article described a sexually suggestive birthday note and drawing contained within a 2003 celebratory album compiled for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. According to the newspaper's reporting, the material bore the name of Donald Trump and was gathered by disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell years prior to Epstein's initial 2006 arrest and subsequent falling-out with Trump. The text on the document concluded with the words, Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret, bordered by the rough outline of a hand-drawn nude woman.

Media additions

Judge dismisses Trump’s $10 billion Wall Street Journal defamation lawsuit with prejudice - Editor and Publisher

Trump vociferously rejected the account, denying that he authored or signed the note and labeling the publication false, malicious, and defamatory. In July 2025, Trump filed a massive libel lawsuit in Miami federal court against Dow Jones & Co., News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, and individual journalists, initially seeking damages running into billions. According to the amended complaint, Trump telephoned Murdoch on 15 July 2025, after Journal reporters contacted the White House for comment. The lawsuit claimed that Murdoch responded with the words, I will handle it, which Trump’s legal filing interpreted as an indication that Murdoch believed him and that the story would be spiked. Representatives for Dow Jones did not immediately respond to inquiries regarding that allegation, though the publisher maintained full confidence in its reporting.

U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles previously tossed out the original complaint in April 2026, finding that it failed to establish the necessary intent. However, that initial dismissal was issued without prejudice, granting the president an opportunity to submit an amended filing in May 2026. In Saturday's decisive ruling, Judge Gayles concluded that the revised complaint fared no better, characterizing the legal effort as grasping at straws and attempting to manufacture flaws in the newspaper's investigative journalism.

By dismissing the case with prejudice in Miami federal court, Judge Gayles ensured that the complaint cannot be refiled in the district court. In his written opinion, the judge invoked the Supreme Court's 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, which imposes a rigorous burden of proof on public figures claiming defamation. Plaintiffs must demonstrate not only that a published statement was false, but that the media outlet published it knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

"The Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice. Indeed, the allegations regarding malice are conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant to whether Defendants knew or should have known that the statements in the Article were purportedly false."

U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, via Mathrubhumi

Furthermore, Judge Gayles emphasized that the Journal had proactively sought out the president's perspective prior to publication and explicitly incorporated his denials into the final piece. The court noted that the reporting did not minimize or ignore Trump's position, but rather informed readers that he decried the letter as a fake. Several other allegations raised within the multi-count lawsuit were likewise dismissed for lacking legal merit.

The legal clash unfolds against a broader backdrop of adversarial relations between the Trump administration and mainstream media organizations during his second term. Beyond the dispute with The Wall Street Journal, Trump remains engaged in separate legal actions involving the BBC, The Associated Press, and other prominent outlets. In mid-September 2026, organizations including CNN, MS NOW, and Politico filed suit after being stripped of White House access, while the president routinely denounces critical coverage as fake news.

Reactions to Saturday's ruling split sharply along corporate and legal lines. A spokesperson for Dow Jones told The Guardian that the publisher was pleased with the court's decision. Conversely, a representative for Trump's legal team signaled defiance, informing outlets that the president intends to challenge the outcome on appeal and continue pressing forward against all defendants involved in the publication.

The dismissal also draws parallels to other recent high-stakes accountability battles, highlighting the volatile intersection of executive authority, defamation jurisprudence, and aggressive investigative reporting.