US Judge Dismisses Trump's $10 Billion Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Letter With Prejudice

A federal judge in Miami dismissed with prejudice President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch on Saturday, 31 October 2026. The ruling ends the case and bars Trump from filing the same claims again.

U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, an Obama appointee, found that Trump had not shown the newspaper published the disputed article with actual malice. Under U.S. law, public figures must prove that a defendant knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Gayles wrote that Trump's amended complaint fell short of that standard and that the president was grasping at straws by trying to manufacture flaws in the Journal's reporting.

The lawsuit arose from a Wall Street Journal story published in 2025. The article described a sexually suggestive letter and drawing that the paper said carried Trump's name and appeared in a 2003 album prepared for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. Ghislaine Maxwell collected the messages for the album years before Epstein's first arrest. The letter reportedly included text framed by the outline of a naked woman and ended with a line wishing Epstein a happy birthday and more secrets. Trump has denied writing or signing the letter.

Gayles first dismissed an earlier version of the suit in April 2026 and allowed Trump to refile with stronger allegations. The May refiling still failed to establish actual malice, the judge ruled. He noted that the allegations of malice were conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the article itself, and often irrelevant to whether the Journal knew or should have known the statements were false. The decision cited the First Amendment and the journalists' extensive reporting.

A spokesman for Trump's legal team said the president would appeal. The spokesman described the suit as a powerhouse case and said Trump would continue to hold those who mislead the public accountable. The White House offered no immediate public reaction to the Saturday ruling.

The case forms part of a series of lawsuits Trump or his business interests have filed against media organisations since he returned to office. Similar multi-billion-dollar complaints have been brought against the New York Times and the BBC. Courts have applied the actual malice standard in each of those actions as well.

The Journal story appeared during a period of bipartisan criticism of the administration's handling of Epstein-related documents. The birthday album itself has been referenced in other legal and congressional materials. Saturday's permanent dismissal removes one avenue of legal pressure on the newspaper over that specific reporting.

Judge Gayles's opinion makes clear that public-figure defamation claims require more than disagreement with published facts or claims of inadequate investigation. The ruling leaves the Journal's account of the letter in place and shifts any further contest to the appellate courts if Trump's team proceeds.

The decision arrives days before the U.S. midterm elections. It does not resolve the underlying factual dispute over the letter's authorship, which remains a matter of public record and competing claims rather than a settled court finding on the truth of the reporting.