Judge Dismisses Trump Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Letter With Prejudice

US District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch with prejudice on October 31, 2026. The ruling ends the case in the lower court and bars refiling of the same claims.

Trump had sued over a 2025 Journal report describing a sexually suggestive letter that the paper said bore his name and signature in a 2003 album compiled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter included a drawing of a woman's outline and suggestive language. Trump has denied writing or signing it.

The suit, originally filed seeking $20 billion and later amended to $10 billion, named Dow Jones, Murdoch, and other defendants. Gayles, an Obama appointee sitting in Miami, found that Trump had not pleaded facts sufficient to show actual malice, the standard required for a public figure under New York Times v. Sullivan. The judge described the amended complaint as grasping at straws and attempting to manufacture flaws in the paper's investigation.

Gayles had dismissed an earlier version of the suit in April 2026 on similar grounds but allowed amendment. The second complaint was filed in May. In the 20-page order, the judge noted the Journal's detailed reporting process, including efforts to seek comment from Trump and others before publication. A denial by the subject does not by itself establish reckless disregard for the truth.

Trump's legal team said it would appeal. A spokesperson stated that the president would continue to press the matter. The Journal has not commented beyond the court outcome. The original story appeared amid broader debate over the handling of Epstein-related documents by the Trump administration.

Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. The birthday album was assembled years earlier by Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter's existence and authenticity remain disputed outside the courtroom; the defamation claim itself has now been closed at the district level.

Actual malice requires proof that the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Gayles found the allegations of malice in the complaint to be conclusory, vague, and in some places inconsistent with the article itself. The ruling cites the First Amendment protections for press reporting on public figures.

The case is the second time Gayles has rejected Trump's claims on this specific article. Dismissal with prejudice means the same factual allegations cannot be reasserted in the Southern District of Florida. An appeal would go to the Eleventh Circuit. Parallel litigation or other claims are not affected by this order.

The Journal reported that the letter was part of a larger birthday book. Trump has called the reporting malicious and false. The court, however, held that the legal threshold for a defamation action by a public official had not been met on the pleadings.