Judge dismisses Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein letter with prejudice

U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami dismissed President Donald Trump’s amended defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch and related defendants on October 31, 2026. The ruling came with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled in that court. Gayles found that Trump’s lawyers again failed to plead facts showing the newspaper published the story with actual malice.

The lawsuit challenged a July 2025 Journal article describing a sexually suggestive letter that the paper said bore Trump’s name and appeared in a 2003 album compiled for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday. The letter, collected by Ghislaine Maxwell, included text framed by the outline of a hand-drawn naked woman and closed with the line “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump denied writing the letter and sued for at least $10 billion.

Gayles had dismissed the original complaint in April 2026 without prejudice, allowing an amended filing. In the October 31 order he wrote that the amended allegations of malice remained “conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant.” He noted that the Journal’s reporters conducted a detailed investigation and sought comment from Trump before publication. Requiring a newspaper to drop a story solely because a public figure denies it, Gayles wrote, “runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

This marks the second time the same judge has rejected the claim. Dow Jones, the Journal’s parent company, said it was pleased with the decision. A Trump spokesperson indicated the president would appeal. The dismissal ends the district-court phase but leaves open the possibility of appellate review.

The underlying reporting relied on materials from the House Oversight Committee’s review of Epstein-related documents. The Journal has stood by its account. The case tested the actual-malice standard that public figures must meet under New York Times v. Sullivan. Gayles concluded that Trump’s pleadings did not clear that bar on either attempt.

The letter itself has circulated in public discussion since the article appeared. Images released by congressional investigators show a signature resembling Trump’s beneath the drawing. Trump has maintained the signature is forged. The court did not resolve the factual dispute over authorship; it held only that the complaint failed to allege the required state of mind by the defendants.

The timing places the ruling three days before the 2026 midterm elections. Trump has continued campaigning while the litigation proceeded. The Journal story formed one element of broader coverage of Epstein’s network of associates. The permanent dismissal removes one avenue of legal pressure on the newspaper but does not alter the underlying documents now held by congressional investigators and other outlets.

For news organizations, the decision reaffirms that denials by public figures do not, by themselves, establish actual malice. For the administration, it closes a high-profile claim that sought large damages against a major news outlet. Appellate courts will decide whether any further proceedings are warranted. Until then, the Journal’s reporting on the letter remains unchallenged in district court.