A federal judge in Miami on Saturday, October 31, dismissed President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its Jeffrey Epstein birthday letter story with prejudice, meaning Trump cannot file it again in that court.
U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the Southern District of Florida ruled in a 20 page order that Trump's amended complaint "falls short of pleading actual malice," the standard a public figure must meet. The defendants were Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, its parent News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson, and reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo. It was Trump's second try. Gayles dismissed the original complaint in April and gave him a chance to replead.
A Trump spokesperson said the president "will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit," CBS News reported, and a source familiar with his legal strategy told CBS an appeal is likely. A Dow Jones spokesperson said, "We're pleased with the court's decision," according to LBC. Reports differ on the size of the claim. Most describe it as a $10 billion suit, while CBS put it at $20 billion.
What the case was about
The Journal published its story online on July 17, 2025, and on its front page the next day. It reported that Ghislaine Maxwell collected letters from Epstein's friends for a 2003 album marking his 50th birthday, and that one bore Trump's name, with typewritten text inside a hand drawn outline of a naked woman. The story quoted Trump's denial: "This is not me. This is a fake thing."
Trump sued on July 18, 2025. That August, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Epstein's estate, and on September 8 it released the birthday book, which includes a page matching the Journal's description. Gayles noted that Trump disputes that page's authenticity, so the court did not rely on it. Whether Trump wrote the letter, the judge said, is a question of fact that cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss.
What the order actually says: four theories, four answers
The ruling is useful because it walks through each way Trump tried to show the paper knew or suspected the story was false. Our breakdown of the order:
The denial. Trump argued that once he called the letter fake, the paper should have spiked the story. Gayles called that a rule that "runs afoul of the First Amendment," because any public figure could block negative coverage simply by denying it. He added that the article reported the denial, which lets readers decide for themselves.
The investigation. Trump said the reporting was inadequate. The judge found the article "details a thoughtful and detailed investigation," citing outreach to Trump, the Justice Department, the FBI, Maxwell's lawyer, Leslie Wexner, Alan Dershowitz and people involved in binding the album. He wrote that the complaint was "grasping at straws" and attempted "to manufacture flaws with the investigation."
Maxwell. Trump faulted the paper for not getting her account. Gayles called the Maxwell argument "a red herring," noting that Trump's own complaint says she told the Justice Department, after the story ran, that she did not remember him submitting a letter.
Omissions. Trump listed eight things the story left out. The court said choosing which facts to include does not show malice, and that the article said more than once that Trump denied writing the letter.
The standard that decided it
Actual malice comes from the Supreme Court's 1964 Sullivan decision: a public figure must show a statement was made knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was. In the Eleventh Circuit, under a 2016 decision called Michel v. NYP Holdings, that has to be pleaded with real facts at the start, before any discovery. Gayles also found that a failure to investigate, standing alone, is not enough. A plaintiff has to allege the publisher deliberately avoided the truth.
Our timeline: 470 days in the trial court
July 15, 2025: A Journal reporter emails the White House press secretary about the story.
July 17 and 18, 2025: The story runs online and in print, and Trump sues.
April 2026: Gayles dismisses the first complaint. He later denies Trump's request for limited discovery on malice before repleading.
May 27, 2026: Trump files the amended complaint.
August 5, 2026: The court hears argument.
October 31, 2026: Dismissal with prejudice.
By our count, that is 470 days from filing to final dismissal in the district court.
What comes next
The fight over money is still open. The defendants asked for attorney fees under Florida or New York anti SLAPP laws, which target suits brought over speech on public issues. Gayles wrote that he "agrees that President Trump's defamation claims lack merit," but said the parties had not briefed which state's law applies. He gave the defendants 30 days, which by our count runs to November 30, to file a fee motion with a choice of law analysis. Any appeal would go to the Eleventh Circuit.
For another high profile defamation case narrowing in court, see Judge Drops Candace Owens Personally From Macron Defamation Suit. For another Trump lawsuit that failed in the trial court, read Trump Asks the Supreme Court to Revive His Clinton Lawsuit and Undo the Sanctions.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
