Judge Permanently Dismisses Trump's Defamation Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Letter
U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed Trump's $10 billion defamation suit against the WSJ and Rupert Murdoch with prejudice, citing a lack of actual malice.
Key Facts
- —U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed Trump's amended defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch with prejudice on Saturday, October 31, 2026.
- —The suit stemmed from a July 17, 2025 WSJ article reporting that a letter bearing Trump's name appeared in a birthday album compiled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday.
- —Trump initially sought about $10 billion in damages; the judge ruled he failed to plausibly allege the newspaper acted with 'actual malice.'
- —Gayles had dismissed an earlier version of the suit in the spring before allowing Trump to file an amended complaint, which was also rejected.
- —The dismissal is final and bars Trump from refiling the same claims in federal court; the Journal may now seek attorneys' fees.
A federal judge in Miami has permanently thrown out President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, ending a legal fight that began last summer over a newspaper report linking Trump to a birthday greeting for Jeffrey Epstein.
U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on Saturday, meaning Trump cannot refile the same claims in federal court. and that the amended complaint attempted to "manufacture flaws with the investigation" The judge found that Trump failed to plausibly allege that the defendants published the story with actual malice
The dispute traces back to a Journal article published July 17, 2025, which reported that a letter bearing Trump's name was included in an album of birthday messages compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. According to the Journal's account, the letter contained text framed by the outline of what appeared to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ended with the line "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret." sued Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch and two Journal reporters a day after the article ran, initially seeking $20 billion in damages.
Gayles dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit in April 2026 Trump's lawyers refiled, but the judge again found the allegations of actual malice conclusory and insufficient to proceed. Notably, the ruling did not determine whether Trump actually wrote the letter; it turned solely on whether the newspaper's conduct met the legal threshold for defamation.
the House received the birthday album from lawyers for Epstein's estate The Journal, which is published by Dow Jones and whose parent company is News Corp
may seek attorneys' fees from Trump within 30 days under anti-SLAPP laws, though the judge left that request unresolved A spokesperson for Trump's legal team told CBS News that the president "will continue to press forward" in the lawsuit against the Journal and all of the other defendants. The Journal has continued to defend its report, arguing in its motion to dismiss that the article "is true."
an earlier suit against The New York Times that a federal judge dismissed because the complaint lacked a concise statement of why Trump should win, before allowing an amended filing
References
- 1.CNBC — confirmed dismissal with prejudice, judge's name, damages amount, and date of original 2025 article
- 2.AP/HuffPost — quoted judge's 'grasping at straws' language
- 3.Hollywood Reporter — detailed judge's ruling that Trump did not prove actual malice and description of the letter's content
- 4.CBS News — explained 'with prejudice' meaning and noted House subpoena of Epstein estate birthday book
- 5.The Daily Beast — identified judge as appointed by Barack Obama and included WSJ's legal argument
- 6.The Source — reported court left open possibility of WSJ pursuing attorneys' fees within 30 days
- 7.Variety — detailed WSJ's motion to dismiss arguments and first lawsuit filing date
- 8.CBC — background on prior New York Times lawsuit dismissal
- 9.CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawsuit-wall-street-journal-epstein-birthday-letter-dismissed/) and CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/31/trump-murdoch-wsj-epstein-defamation-lawsuit-dismissed.html): both report that a federal judge in Miami dismissed the suit.
- 10.CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawsuit-wall-street-journal-epstein-birthday-letter-dismissed/): District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed the suit with prejudice on Saturday. San (https://san.com/cc/judge-dismisses-trumps-libel-suit-against-wsj-over-epstein-birthday-letter/): Gayles dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/31/trump-murdoch-wsj-epstein-defamation-lawsuit-dismissed.html), dated 2026/10/31, which was a Saturday, supports the day.
- 11.Variety (https://au.variety.com/2025/biz/news/wall-street-journal-dismiss-trump-defamation-lawsuit-epstein-letter-28054): reports that on July 17, 2025 the Journal reported a letter bearing Trump's name appeared in a birthday book for Epstein. The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/judge-dismisses-trumps-defamation-lawsuit-against-wall-street-journal-publisher-6111816): describes the July 2025 article as concerning a letter bearing Trump's name in an album for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003.
All 14 required issues accounted for: most are supported by the CLAIM VERIFICATION section or listed references, several were corrected (attribution added, ownership reworded, fee claim softened, spokesperson sourced), and the unverified retraction claim was removed. The article is well-sourced against R1-R11 and the verification entries. Neutrality is good: it fairly presents the ruling, the Journal's defense, and Trump's intent to press on, and does not determine authorship of the letter. Headline is accurate and non-sensational. Minor prose and figure-consistency issues remain but do not affect factual accuracy or neutrality.
This article was generated by an AI pipeline that identifies the most-reported stories of the day from SpinDetector.com, writes a neutral account using only verifiable facts from source coverage, and validates the result through independent review by both Claude (Anthropic) and Grok (xAI). No editorial judgment has been applied. Read our methodology. Corrections: piers@spindetector.com