.png){kind=logo}
A federal judge has dismissed President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal over a disputed letter to Jeffrey Epstein. The October 31 decision prevents Trump from filing the same claims again in the Miami federal court.
U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that Trump's revised complaint still failed to establish a plausible claim of actual malice. Trump's lawyers said they would appeal. Trump says he neither wrote nor signed the letter at the center of the case.
Gayles rejected the lawsuit after examining Trump's second attempt to challenge the Journal's July 2025 reporting. The amended complaint sought at least USD 10 billion in damages from Murdoch, the newspaper's publisher Dow Jones, News Corp and others. Two Journal reporters also faced claims in the case.
The judge said Trump's lawyers failed to show that the defendants knowingly published false information or recklessly disregarded the truth. That standard, known as actual malice, applies when public figures bring defamation cases against news organizations. Gayles called several allegations vague or inconsistent with the newspaper's reporting.
The court had dismissed Trump's original complaint in April 2026 but allowed his lawyers to revise it. However, Gayles found that the new filing did not resolve the earlier problems. He dismissed it "with prejudice," barring another filing of those claims in the same court.
The case followed a July 17, 2025, Journal article about a birthday album prepared for Epstein in 2003. The newspaper reported that the album contained a sexually suggestive letter bearing Trump's name and a drawing of a woman's body.
Trump denied creating or signing the letter. He described the document as "a fake thing" and accused the newspaper of publishing a false account. The court did not determine whether Trump wrote the letter or whether the signature was authentic. Trump's complaint also described a call with Murdoch before publication. Trump claimed Murdoch replied, "I will handle it," after hearing his objections. The judge did not consider that exchange sufficient to establish actual malice.
According to the ruling, Journal reporters contacted Trump and his representatives before publishing. They also sought comments from Justice Department officials, the FBI and people connected to the album. Gayles described the reporting process as a "thoughtful and detailed investigation."
Trump argued that the newspaper should have dropped the story after he denied the letter's authenticity. However, Gayles said a denial alone does not prevent journalists from publishing contrary information. He also noted that the Journal included Trump's response in its original report. The court noted that the Journal described uncertainty about how the letter was prepared. Readers received the newspaper's findings alongside Trump's denial, allowing them to draw their own conclusions from the published report.
A spokesperson for Dow Jones welcomed Saturday's decision, saying, "We're pleased with the court's decision." Trump's legal team responded that the president would continue pursuing the case through an appeal.
The judge also addressed the defendants' request to recover legal fees and costs. He left that question open and gave them 30 days to file another motion explaining which state's law should apply.
The ruling ends the current case in the district court, although an appeals court could review the decision. For now, the court's order addresses the legal basis for Trump's defamation claims, not the disputed letter's authorship.
ALSO READ: 2026 Midterm Elections Could Reshape US Crypto Regulations & Markets