A United States federal judge has dismissed President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over a controversial report linking him to a birthday message allegedly written for late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Judge Darrin Gayles ruled against Trump, concluding that his legal team had failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the newspaper or its parent company, Dow Jones, deliberately published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The dispute began after The Wall Street Journal published an investigation into a collection of messages and letters reportedly compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. Among the items was a letter bearing Trump’s name, featuring suggestive wording and an outline of a naked woman.
Trump strongly denied authoring or signing the message, accusing the newspaper, its owner Rupert Murdoch and other executives of damaging his reputation through a false publication. He initially demanded $20 billion in damages before refiling the case with a reduced claim of $10 billion.
However, Gayles dismissed the revised lawsuit with prejudice, meaning Trump cannot bring the same case before the court again.
In his 20-page judgment, the judge criticised the arguments presented by Trump’s lawyers, describing their efforts to identify weaknesses in the newspaper’s reporting as an attempt to manufacture flaws in what he considered a detailed investigation.
A major issue in the case was the legal requirement known as actual malice. Under American defamation law, public figures must demonstrate that a media organisation either knew a disputed claim was false or published it while recklessly disregarding its truth.
The judge rejected Trump’s argument that the newspaper should have abandoned its investigation simply because he denied writing the letter when approached for a response.
Gayles maintained that accepting such an argument would undermine press freedom, as journalists could be prevented from reporting controversial allegations against powerful individuals whenever those involved issued denials.
The case attracted considerable attention amid growing political controversy over the Trump administration’s handling of documents connected to Epstein, whose relationships with influential figures have continued to generate public interest.
The ruling represents a significant legal victory for The Wall Street Journal and reinforces the constitutional protections available to American media organisations when reporting on matters involving public figures.
