President Donald Trump. (Photo: White House)
In 60 seconds: A federal judge in Miami has thrown out President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal — this time with prejudice, which means the same claims can't be filed again. The judge ruled Trump's amended complaint still failed to show the paper acted with "actual malice" when it reported on a 2003 birthday letter bearing his name.
- U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles dismissed the suit with prejudice on Saturday, October 31 — Trump cannot bring the same claims again.
- The lawsuit targeted the Journal's July 17, 2025 report on a sexually suggestive letter included in a 2003 birthday album assembled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday.
- Gayles ruled the amended complaint failed to plausibly allege "actual malice" — that the paper knew the story was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
- Trump had sought at least $10 billion in damages on each of two defamation claims, against Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, Robert Thomson and two reporters.
- It was his second attempt: Gayles dismissed the original complaint in April 2026 but allowed an amended filing. The revised version fared no better.
Here's the thing about suing a newspaper as a sitting president: the bar isn't "the story embarrassed me." It's much higher than that. On Saturday, a federal judge reminded Donald Trump of exactly how high — and closed the door on his lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for good.
What happened
U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, based in Miami, dismissed President Trump's defamation lawsuit against the publisher of The Wall Street Journal for a second time on Saturday, October 31, 2026. This time, though, the dismissal came with prejudice — the same claims cannot be refiled. "The Court agrees that President Trump's defamation claims lack merit," Gayles wrote.
The ruling was blunt. According to reports on the decision, the judge called the lawsuit "grasping at straws" in its attempt to "manufacture" flaws in the Journal's reporting. (The defendants were Dow Jones, News Corp, Robert Thomson, Rupert Murdoch and two Journal reporters.)
Latest verified facts
The case traces back to a July 17, 2025 Journal story headlined "Jeffrey Epstein's Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump." The article reported that a book assembled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003 included a letter with typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, signed "Donald." Trump denied writing it, insisted it was fabricated, and sued in July 2025, accusing the paper of knowingly publishing a false story.
Before the story ran, Trump had personally contacted Murdoch in an effort to stop its publication. That didn't work, and the lawsuit didn't either — at least not the first time. In April 2026, Gayles dismissed the original complaint, ruling that its assertions of malice were "formulaic" and came "nowhere close" to the legal standard for a public figure. But he left the door open to an amended complaint, which arrived in May 2026.
Saturday's ruling found the rewrite didn't fix the problem. Gayles wrote that Trump's allegations "are conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the article, and often irrelevant" to proving actual malice. He also rejected Trump's argument that the Journal should have held the story once he denied the letter's authenticity. "Were that the law, any time a public figure or his team denies an accusation, journalists would be immediately blocked from publishing negative or contradictory press," the judge wrote — a requirement he said would violate the First Amendment.
One more thread: the House Oversight Committee later published a copy of the alleged note. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
Why it matters
It turns on the rule that has governed American libel law for more than 60 years: under the Supreme Court's 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, a public figure suing for defamation must prove "actual malice" — that the publisher knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true. That's why American newspapers can report aggressively on powerful people without a denial serving as a veto.
Gayles' decision is a textbook application of that standard. A denial alone doesn't prove a newsroom lied, and conclusions without specific facts don't clear the bar. The judge's frustration is visible in the language: this wasn't a close call, it was a second attempt that repeated the first one's mistakes.
Impact on the USA and the world
For American newsrooms, the ruling is reassuring. A president suing a major newspaper for billions is a pressure tactic whether or not it succeeds in court — and a with-prejudice dismissal says this particular pressure campaign has run out of road in this courtroom. Careful, sourced reporting on public figures still has strong legal shelter, even when the subject is the most powerful person in the country.
The case is also one more piece of the Epstein record that keeps growing through institutions rather than headlines.
What happens next
Trump can still appeal, but he cannot refile the same claims — and any appeal would face the same demanding actual-malice standard. The Journal and its reporters no longer face multibillion-dollar liability over the 2025 story.
Our take: this isn't the end of the broader fight between Trump and the press. But as a legal matter, Saturday's ruling draws a clean line: a denial is not a veto, a conclusion is not evidence, and a second bite at the same complaint doesn't change the standard. That's not a win for one newspaper. It's the First Amendment working the way it was designed to.
Read our earlier coverage: Trump Reinstates Rallies as DOJ Probes Alaska, California Votes and Judge Bars DOJ From Threatening Election Workers 4 Days Before the Midterms.
Sources
- CNN: "Judge tosses Trump's lawsuit against Wall Street Journal again, this time for good" (October 31, 2026) — https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/31/media/trump-wall-street-journal-murdoch-lawsuit-dismissed?cid=external-feeds_iluminar_meta
- The Wall Street Journal: "Judge Dismisses Trump's Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal Publisher Again" (October 31, 2026) — https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/judge-dismisses-trumps-lawsuit-against-wall-street-journal-publisher-again-709f7ebf
- Firstpost: "US judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against WSJ over 'lewd' birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein" (November 1, 2026) — https://www.firstpost.com/world/us-judge-dismisses-trumps-lawsuit-against-wsj-over-lewd-birthday-letter-to-jeffrey-epstein-14056892.html
- The Economic Times: "US judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein letter" (November 1, 2026) — https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/us-judge-dismiss-trump-lawsuit-against-wall-steet-journal-over-epstein-letter/articleshow/135415256.cms
- The Hindu BusinessLine: "Trump's lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein story dismissed" (November 1, 2026) — https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/world/trump-loses-lawsuit-against-wall-street-journal-over-epstein-birthday-letter-story/article71651968.ece