A federal judge dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media executive Rupert Murdoch on Saturday, October 31, 2026. The ruling found that Trump's legal team had failed to establish a plausible claim that the newspaper knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles issued the decision in Miami, dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. That means Trump cannot file another amended version of the same case in the district court, although he can challenge the ruling through an appeal.
The lawsuit concerned a July 2025 newspaper article describing a sexually suggestive birthday letter allegedly bearing Trump's name. The letter was reportedly included in a 2003 birthday album prepared for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump has repeatedly denied writing or signing the letter. His attorneys argued that the newspaper published defamatory allegations despite having reason to doubt their accuracy.
The judge rejected that argument, finding that the revised complaint still failed to satisfy the demanding legal standards governing defamation lawsuits brought by public officials.
Judge Rejects Trump's Revised Defamation Claims
Gayles described several arguments in Trump's amended complaint as insufficient to establish actual malice.
The judge found that Trump's legal team had attempted to identify problems with the newspaper's investigation without adequately showing that its reporters believed the story was false or seriously doubted its accuracy.
In his written ruling, Gayles described the lawsuit as "grasping at straws" in its effort to challenge the reporting process.
The decision followed an earlier dismissal in April 2026. At that time, Gayles ruled that Trump's original complaint failed to establish a plausible basis for the defamation claims.
However, the judge allowed Trump to revise his allegations and submit an amended complaint.
Trump's attorneys subsequently filed a revised version that included additional claims about the newspaper's reporting practices and communications before publication.
The judge concluded that those additions did not repair the original legal deficiencies.
Unlike the April decision, Saturday's dismissal was issued with prejudice. The ruling therefore prevents Trump from simply filing another revised complaint in the same case.
The distinction is important because the court did not conduct a trial or make a factual determination about who created the disputed letter. Instead, the judge ruled that the lawsuit lacked sufficient allegations to proceed under the applicable defamation standard.
What the Wall Street Journal Reported
The dispute began with an article published by The Wall Street Journal on July 17, 2025.
The newspaper reported that a birthday album assembled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003 contained messages from friends and acquaintances, including one bearing Trump's name.
According to the article, the message included typewritten text surrounded by an illustration resembling the outline of a naked woman.
The letter reportedly ended with a birthday greeting referencing a shared secret. The combination of the illustration and suggestive language made the document a subject of widespread political and media attention.
Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein associate, reportedly helped collect messages for the birthday album.
Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of federal crimes connected to helping Epstein sexually exploit and abuse underage girls. She subsequently received a 20-year prison sentence.
The newspaper's report became controversial because Trump had previously acknowledged knowing Epstein socially while denying involvement in his criminal conduct.
Trump and Epstein moved in some of the same social circles during the 1990s and early 2000s. Their relationship later deteriorated, according to accounts of their association.
Trump has not been charged with participating in Epstein's sexual abuse or trafficking crimes.
The existence of the reported letter does not itself establish involvement in those crimes. The legal dispute focused on whether the newspaper had published defamatory information about the document and its alleged connection to Trump.
Trump Denied Writing the Letter
Trump publicly rejected the newspaper's account shortly after the article appeared.
He characterized the letter as fraudulent and accused the newspaper of publishing false information intended to damage his reputation.
On July 18, 2025, one day after publication, Trump filed a federal lawsuit seeking billions of dollars in damages.
The complaint named the newspaper, its publisher Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch and individuals associated with the article.
Trump alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly published false statements about him. His attorneys argued that the report caused substantial reputational and financial harm.
The lawsuit initially sought at least $10 billion, making it one of the largest defamation claims Trump had pursued against a news organization.
A central argument was that the newspaper should have stopped publication after Trump denied creating the letter.
According to the amended complaint, Trump had contacted Murdoch before the article appeared.
The lawsuit alleged that Trump spoke with Murdoch on July 15, 2025, after reporters approached the White House seeking comment.
Trump's attorneys claimed Murdoch indicated that he would address the matter. They argued that the exchange gave Trump reason to believe the article would not be published.
However, Gayles found that these allegations did not establish the legal requirements for actual malice.
The judge emphasized that a subject's denial does not automatically make publication unlawful, particularly when reporters have conducted their own investigation.
What Actual Malice Means in Defamation Law
The ruling relied on a major legal principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964.
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public officials suing for defamation must meet a higher standard than private individuals.
To succeed, a public official generally must demonstrate that a defamatory statement was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was true.
This requirement is commonly called actual malice.
Despite its name, the standard does not simply mean hostility, personal dislike or an intention to embarrass someone.
A plaintiff must provide evidence supporting a finding that the publisher knew the challenged information was false or had serious doubts about its accuracy.
The rule is designed to protect freedom of expression and allow vigorous reporting about public officials, even when that reporting is disputed.
In Trump's case, Gayles found that the amended complaint did not adequately allege the required state of mind.
The judge also considered how the newspaper handled Trump's denial.
Rather than ignoring his response, the article informed readers that Trump disputed the letter's authenticity and denied writing it.
That detail was significant because Trump's attorneys had argued that the newspaper deliberately disregarded his objections.
The court determined that the reporting process described in the lawsuit did not plausibly demonstrate actual malice.
Newspaper Defends Its Reporting
Dow Jones, the company that publishes The Wall Street Journal, welcomed the dismissal.
A spokesperson said the company was pleased with the court's decision. The newspaper had previously defended the accuracy of its reporting and maintained that its journalists had followed appropriate investigative procedures.
Reuters reported that the judge acknowledged the newspaper's efforts to investigate the story and seek responses before publication.
The newspaper's attorneys argued that Trump's lawsuit threatened First Amendment protections for reporting about matters of public interest.
They maintained that allowing a defamation case to advance solely because a public official denied a report would discourage journalists from publishing legitimate investigations.
Trump's legal representatives rejected the significance of the dismissal and indicated that they intended to continue pursuing the dispute.
According to CBS News, a spokesperson for Trump's legal team said the president would continue efforts to hold news organizations accountable for reporting he considered false.
The legal team also indicated that an appeal was expected.
An appeal would ask a higher court to review whether Gayles correctly applied the law when dismissing the amended complaint.
It would not automatically establish whether Trump authored the disputed letter.
Epstein Birthday Album Became Part of Congressional Scrutiny
The newspaper's July 2025 story also generated interest among lawmakers examining Epstein-related records.
In September 2025, congressional investigators obtained materials from Epstein's estate, including pages from the reported birthday album.
A version of the document bearing Trump's name subsequently became public through the House Oversight Committee.
The release intensified disagreement over the document's authenticity.
Trump and his representatives continued to deny that he created the drawing or signed the message.
The public release of the document did not settle the authorship dispute. The question of whether Trump personally wrote or approved the letter remained contested.
Epstein, a wealthy financier with connections to prominent political, business and entertainment figures, was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019.
He died by suicide in a New York jail the following month while awaiting trial.
The criminal investigations surrounding Epstein and Maxwell have continued to generate demands for government transparency and the disclosure of additional records.
Those broader investigations are separate from Trump's civil defamation lawsuit against the newspaper.
Dismissal Leaves Appeal as the Next Legal Option
Saturday's decision represents the second time Gayles has dismissed Trump's claims arising from the same newspaper article.
The first dismissal gave the president an opportunity to revise his allegations. The second found that his amended complaint still failed to satisfy the legal standard.
Because the case was dismissed with prejudice, Trump cannot continue revising the same lawsuit in the district court.
His remaining path is to pursue an appeal, which could result in the ruling being upheld, overturned or returned to the lower court for further proceedings.
The decision also leaves the underlying dispute over the letter unresolved as a factual matter.
The court did not determine that Trump wrote the document, nor did it find that the newspaper fabricated it. Its ruling addressed whether the complaint contained legally sufficient allegations of defamation.
The immediate result is that The Wall Street Journal, Murdoch and the other defendants no longer face an active district court lawsuit over the article.
Whether the case returns to federal court will depend on Trump's next legal filing and any decision by the appeals court.