Federal Judge Permanently Dismisses Trump’s $10 Billion WSJ Defamation Suit Over Epstein Letter

Key points

• Judge Gayles dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled in district court, after finding Trump failed to prove 'actual malice' as required for public figures.
• The lawsuit challenged a July 2025 WSJ article reporting that a letter bearing Trump’s name and a drawing of a naked woman was included in a 2003 birthday album for Epstein.
• Trump’s legal team plans to appeal the ruling, while Dow Jones expressed satisfaction with the decision.
• The judge noted that the WSJ included Trump’s denials in the article and conducted a thorough investigation, rejecting claims that the outlet acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Background

This ruling follows an initial dismissal in April 2026, which allowed Trump to file an amended complaint. The case stems from a 2025 WSJ article that reported on a letter allegedly sent by Trump to Epstein in 2003, before Epstein’s 2006 arrest. The letter, which included suggestive text and a drawing, was part of a birthday album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday. Trump has consistently denied writing the letter, calling it 'fake' and 'malicious.'

How outlets are covering it

NPR and The Guardian emphasize the permanent nature of the dismissal with prejudice and the judge’s criticism of Trump’s attempt to 'manufacture flaws' in the reporting. CNBC highlights Trump’s plan to appeal and the inclusion of Rupert Murdoch as a defendant, noting that Trump had personally contacted Murdoch to stop the article’s publication. The BBC focuses on the First Amendment implications, noting that the judge rejected Trump’s argument that the WSJ should have disregarded its investigation after receiving his denial, stating that such a standard would 'run afoul of the First Amendment.'

Why it matters

The dismissal with prejudice is a significant legal setback for Trump, who has pursued adversarial relationships with multiple news organizations during his second term. It reinforces the high legal threshold of 'actual malice' required for public figures to win defamation claims, as established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The ruling also underscores the limits of public figures’ ability to suppress unfavorable reporting through legal action.

What to watch

Trump’s legal team plans to appeal the ruling. The case may also be affected by other ongoing media-related lawsuits, including those involving the BBC, Associated Press, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.