Judge Dismisses Trump Defamation Suit Against Murdoch and WSJ Over Epstein Letter

A federal judge in Miami has dismissed President Donald Trump's amended defamation lawsuit against media mogul Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal. The lawsuit concerned the newspaper's July 2025 article about a 50th birthday letter allegedly sent by Trump to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

District Court Judge Darrin Gayles issued the ruling on a Saturday, dismissing the case with prejudice. This means Trump is barred from filing another lawsuit based on the same claims against Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal in federal court. The decision follows an earlier dismissal by the same judge in April, when Trump was granted the opportunity to amend his complaint.

Judge Gayles ruled that Trump failed to provide a plausible claim that the defendants acted with actual malice in publishing the article. He criticized the amended complaint for attempting to manufacture flaws in the newspaper's investigation, stating, "As with his first attempt, he has failed." The judge highlighted that the Wall Street Journal conducted a "thoughtful and detailed investigation" before publishing the story.

The Wall Street Journal's article, published on July 17, 2025, reported that a letter bearing Trump's signature was part of an album of letters that Epstein prepared for his 50th birthday. The letter was said to have been sent at the request of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's close associate who was later convicted for procuring underage girls for Epstein's abuse.

The letter included typewritten text framed by a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman, with Trump’s signature appearing as a squiggly "Donald" below the figure's waist, mimicking pubic hair. The letter ended with the phrase, "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret," according to reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo.

Trump has vehemently denied authoring the letter, calling it a fake and stating, "I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women." Despite these denials, Judge Gayles declined to decide whether Trump actually wrote the letter, focusing instead on the legal standards for defamation cases involving public figures.

Under established Supreme Court precedents, public figures such as Trump must prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice — meaning the publisher knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Judge Gayles found that Trump did not meet this burden in his amended complaint.

The lawsuit sought $10 billion in damages from Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Murdoch's News Corp. A spokesperson for Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of the Journal, expressed satisfaction with the court's ruling. Meanwhile, a representative for Trump's legal team confirmed plans to appeal the dismissal, stating the president remains committed to pursuing the case and holding media outlets accountable for what he describes as "Fake News and smears."

This dismissal represents the latest legal setback for Trump in his efforts to challenge media coverage he disputes. Earlier, another federal judge in Miami ordered Trump to provide a deposition by December 11 as part of a separate $10 billion defamation suit against the BBC.

The context of this case reflects ongoing tensions between public figures and the press, particularly when it comes to reporting on controversial subjects like Epstein, whose criminal activities have drawn intense scrutiny. The Wall Street Journal's investigative work on this story fits into a broader pattern of media organizations examining Epstein's network and those connected to him.

Judge Gayles also noted that allowing public figures to block publication of stories simply because they deny their accuracy would conflict with First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and the press. This legal safeguard ensures that the press can report on matters of public interest without undue censorship, provided they do not act with actual malice.

As the appeal process unfolds, this case underscores the complex balance between protecting reputations and safeguarding press freedoms in litigation involving high-profile individuals and sensitive allegations.