$10 Billion Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed Against the Wall Street Journal, Why the Judge Threw It Out

A federal judge dismissed President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal on April 13, 2026. The case centered on a Wall Street Journal story about Trump’s ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Darrin P. Gayles dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Trump’s legal team now has until April 27 to file an amended complaint.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Case Name	Trump v. Murdoch
Court	U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
Judge	U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles
Damages Sought	$10 billion
Defendants	Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Co., News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, individual reporters
Dismissal Type	Without prejudice
Reason for Dismissal	Failure to allege “actual malice”
Deadline to Refile	April 27, 2026
Case Status	Dismissed — amended complaint permitted

Where the Case Stands Now

• Judge Gayles dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, giving Trump’s legal team until April 27, 2026, to file an amended complaint that addresses the court’s concerns.
• Responding to the ruling, Trump’s team said the president “will follow Judge Gayles’s ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other Defendants.”
• Attorneys for the newspaper and Murdoch had asked Gayles to rule that the article’s statements were true and therefore could not be defamatory, but the judge declined to make that factual determination at this stage.

What Was the WSJ Story About?

According to the Wall Street Journal’s story, published July 17, 2025, a letter bearing Trump’s name appeared in a birthday book containing letters from the family and friends of Epstein, compiled in 2003 by his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. The Journal reported that Trump’s letter contained typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman appearing to be hand-drawn, with the future president’s signature below the figure and the message: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Trump denied writing the letter in an interview with the newspaper, saying: “This is not me. This is a fake thing.” Trump filed the lawsuit the following day, following up on a promise to sue the paper almost immediately after the story was published.

Trump filed the defamation lawsuit in July against the Wall Street Journal, its parent company Dow Jones, its owner Rupert Murdoch, and the individual reporters who filed the story. In the lawsuit, Trump demanded damages of “not less than $10 billion” and accused the reporters of showing “glaring failures in journalistic ethics and standards of accurate reporting.”

Why Did the Judge Dismiss the Lawsuit?

The core legal issue came down to a standard called “actual malice.” Under U.S. defamation law, public figures like the President cannot win a defamation case simply by proving a statement was false.

Public figures must prove not only that a public statement about them was false, but also that the media outlet acted with reckless disregard for the truth or should have known that it was false. This standard traces back to the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).

Judge Gayles wrote: “Because President Trump has not plausibly alleged that defendants published the article with actual malice, both counts must be dismissed.” Gayles said the original complaint relied on “formulaic” claims about malice and how the newspaper “knew or should have known” the story was false — coming “nowhere close” to the court’s standards for claiming defamation for a public figure.

Related article: Curriculum Associates Class Action Lawsuit, Did i-Ready Secretly Collect Your Child’s Data?

The judge noted that reporters from the Wall Street Journal reached out to Trump for comment beforehand and printed his denial, which allowed readers to decide for themselves what to conclude — cutting against Trump’s assertion that the newspaper acted with actual malice.

Judge Gayles noted that to establish actual malice, “a plaintiff must show the defendant deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of the statement in order to evade learning the truth” — and Trump’s complaint failed to meet that bar.

What Is “Actual Malice” and Why Does It Matter?

This is the legal concept that sits at the center of the entire case — and it trips up many high-profile defamation lawsuits filed by public figures against news outlets.

Actual malice does NOT mean:

• The reporter disliked the subject
• The story was embarrassing or damaging
• The subject denied the claims before publication

Actual malice DOES mean:

• The outlet published something it knew was false, OR
• The outlet showed reckless disregard for whether something was true or false

Courts rarely find that actual malice exists absent “smoking gun” type documentation that an article was published despite the existence of serious doubts or actual knowledge about whether it was accurate.

Judge Gayles concluded that the reporters “attempted to investigate” the letter and did not act recklessly just because Trump denied its authenticity.

What Happened to the Epstein Letter After the Story?

The letter was subsequently released publicly by Congress, which subpoenaed the records from Epstein’s estate. The Wall Street Journal and its parent companies filed a motion to dismiss Trump’s lawsuit last September, arguing the article was true and noting that Epstein’s estate had produced the birthday book — containing the letter bearing Trump’s signature — in response to that congressional subpoena.

In his ruling, Judge Gayles wrote that while the produced documents appeared identical to the album and letter referenced in the article, the court could not simply accept them as fact where Trump disputed their accuracy. The judge made clear that questions about the letter’s authenticity remain factual matters that cannot be resolved at this early stage of the case.

How Does This Fit Trump’s Broader Legal Campaign Against the Media?

Legal experts said they could not recall any past instances of a sitting president suing a news outlet over a story. For Trump, though, it was a continuation of a pattern that dates back decades — he has frequently garnered publicity for filing lawsuits that ultimately fall apart in court.

A federal judge dismissed Trump’s defamation case against CNN in 2023, and subsequent efforts to revive the case have failed. Trump also sued the New York Times over a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation into his finances, and that lawsuit was also dismissed.

Trump has also filed a defamation lawsuit against the BBC, which has said it will defend itself. Analysts speculated that Trump might have filed suit against the Journal to muddy the waters about the Epstein birthday book, to pressure News Corp into a settlement payment, or to push back against Murdoch in other ways.

Murdoch’s camp, however, said it would not go the settlement route and has vigorously contested Trump’s claims in court — even as the 95-year-old Murdoch has maintained a complicated relationship with the president, including multiple meetings at the White House in recent months.

Key Dates & Timeline

Event	Date
WSJ publishes Epstein birthday letter article	July 17, 2025
Trump files defamation lawsuit	July 2025
WSJ files motion to dismiss	September 2025
Congress subpoenas Epstein estate records	September 2025
Judge Gayles dismisses the lawsuit	April 13, 2026
Deadline for Trump to file amended complaint	April 27, 2026

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Wall Street Journal actually report about Trump and Epstein?

 The Journal reported in July 2025 on a letter bearing Trump’s signature found in a birthday album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. The letter included a sexually suggestive hand-drawn image and the message: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump denied writing it.

Why did the judge throw out Trump’s lawsuit?

 The judge ruled that Trump failed to plausibly allege that the Wall Street Journal published the article with actual malice — the legal standard public figures must meet in defamation cases in the United States.

What does “dismissed without prejudice” mean?

 It means the case is not permanently over. Trump’s legal team has until April 27, 2026, to file an amended complaint that addresses the judge’s legal concerns. If they refile and the judge finds it sufficient, the case continues.

Can Trump still win this lawsuit?

 It is possible but legally challenging. The actual malice standard makes it exceedingly difficult for a public official or public figure to win a defamation lawsuit against a news outlet. Trump’s team would need to present significantly stronger evidence that the Journal knowingly published falsehoods.

Has Trump sued other media outlets like this before?

 Yes. Trump has filed defamation suits against CNN, the New York Times (multiple cases), and the BBC, among others. Most of these cases have been dismissed or are still ongoing.

What is the “actual malice” standard and where does it come from?

 The actual malice standard comes from the 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It requires public figures to prove a media outlet either knew a story was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth — not simply that the story was wrong or damaging.

Did the judge say the WSJ article was true? 

No. The judge declined to make that determination, writing that whether Trump authored the letter or was Epstein’s friend “are questions of fact that cannot be determined at this stage of the litigation.”

What did Trump’s legal team say after the ruling?

 Trump’s legal team said the president “will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American People” and confirmed plans to refile the lawsuit.

Last Updated: April 13, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.