Judge Throws Out Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal
A federal judge permanently dismissed President Donald Trump’s multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal regarding an article concerning a birthday book for Jeffrey Epstein.
At a glance
- U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal with prejudice.
- The judge ruled that the suit failed to meet the high legal standard of showing actual malice by the publication.
- The lawsuit stemmed from an article reporting on a 2003 birthday book compiled for Jeffrey Epstein containing a card bearing Trump's name.
- A spokesperson for Trump's legal team stated they plan to continue holding outlets accountable, while sources indicate an appeal is likely.
A federal judge in Florida has permanently dismissed President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal concerning an investigative piece detailing a birthday card he allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein. U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that the amended complaint failed to meet the demanding legal threshold required to prove actual malice by the publication.
The legal battle began after the newspaper published an investigation last year describing a 2003 birthday album assembled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's 50th birthday. The collection included a card featuring a typed note and a hand-drawn illustration with a signature resembling Trump's first name. Trump and the White House consistently denied involvement, maintaining the document was fabricated.
The Court Decision
Judge Gayles wrote that the revised complaint suffered from the exact same fundamental flaws as the initial attempt, which he had previously thrown out in April. Because it marked the second time the suit fell short, the judge ordered the dismissal with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled.
The 20-page ruling stated that the lawsuit was grasping at straws in an effort to manufacture flaws within the newspaper's investigative reporting. Public figures pursuing defamation must demonstrate that statements were published with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Arguments From Both Sides
Trump’s legal team argued that the publication fabricated the note and failed to properly investigate before publishing, causing significant financial and reputational damage. They also criticized the paper for not initially publishing an image of the card and for omitting an interview with Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking.
Attorneys representing The Wall Street Journal countered that reporting on a birthday card does not constitute defamation and noted that the article informed readers of Trump’s denials. Furthermore, legal counsel for the paper pointed out that the House Oversight Committee later publicly released a copy of the card obtained from Epstein's estate, demonstrating that the reporting was substantially true.
Analysis
The court's decision emphasizes the high legal bar established for public figures in defamation cases. To succeed, plaintiffs must provide clear evidence of actual malice, defined as publishing with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Judicial review in such cases focuses heavily on whether the reporting was conducted with adequate investigation and whether subsequent public disclosures, such as records from congressional committees, support the substance of the original claims.
What to watch: An appeal of the dismissal in the coming weeks.
Reporting from: NBC News, CBS News, ABC News. Spotted an error? Tell us.
- Donald Trump
- Wall Street Journal
- Jeffrey Epstein
- Lawsuits
- Media
- United States
- Politics