Judge Dismisses Trump’s $10 Billion WSJ Defamation Suit With Prejudice

Q: Why did Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit fail even if he said the Epstein letter was fake?

Trump’s lawsuit failed because, as a public figure, he had to do more than say the Epstein letter was fake. He had to plausibly show “actual malice” — that The Wall Street Journal either knew its reporting was false or published it while seriously doubting it was true. Judge Darrin P. Gayles said Trump’s denial, by itself, was not enough to meet that constitutional standard. The court found that a subject’s claim that a document is fake does not require a newspaper to ignore other reporting, sources, or evidence it has gathered. Requiring that would let public figures shut down unfavorable reporting simply by denying it, which the judge said would conflict with First Amendment protections. The ruling also turned on what the Journal knew and believed at the time of publication, not on whether Trump objected afterward. In defamation law, especially under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, falsity alone is not enough for a public figure to win. Careless reporting is usually not enough either. The plaintiff must show the publisher acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Gayles said Trump’s amended complaint still did not plausibly allege that level of wrongdoing and described the paper’s investigation as thoughtful and detailed. The judge therefore dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Trump cannot refile the same claim in that court, though his legal team has indicated it plans to keep pursuing the matter, likely through appeal.

3 articles · Updated · CNBC · Oct 31

A Miami federal judge threw out Donald Trump’s amended defamation case against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal, barring any further rewrite of the complaint in district court.
Judge Darrin Gayles said Trump again failed to plausibly show actual malice, calling the Journal’s July 2025 reporting on a purported Epstein birthday letter a “thoughtful and detailed investigation.”
Gayles rejected Trump’s argument that the paper should have withheld publication after his denial, saying that theory would let public figures suppress unfavorable reporting and would run afoul of the First Amendment.
Trump’s legal team said he will appeal; Gayles did not rule on whether Trump actually wrote the disputed 2003 letter, only on whether the defendants acted with the required legal standard for defamation.
The ruling marks another media-litigation setback for Trump, who also faces a court-ordered deposition by Dec. 11 in a separate $10 billion defamation suit against the BBC.