Judge dismisses Trump's $10 billion Wall Street Journal suit with prejudice

The ruling ran 20 pages. It came more than six months after US District Judge Darrin Gayles first threw out the case in April.

For readers the effect is narrow; for the law it is not. The actual malice standard he failed to meet governs every public official who sues a newsroom. The judge did not decide whether Trump wrote the letter at the centre of the story.

A second dismissal, this time with prejudice

Gayles dismissed Trump's original complaint in April. He found it failed to adequately allege actual malice. He allowed one amended version, which Trump filed in May. Saturday's order rejected that version on the same ground. "As with his first attempt, he has failed," Gayles wrote. He added that the amended complaint, "grasping at straws", tried to "manufacture flaws with the investigation". He called the malice allegations "conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant".

Why actual malice decided it

Public figures suing for defamation must show that a publisher knew a statement was false or showed reckless disregard for whether it was true. Gayles anchored the ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that set that standard. Trump argued the Journal should not have published once he denied writing the letter. Gayles rejected that. He wrote that accepting it would let public figures block unfavorable reporting. It would "run afoul of the First Amendment". He also noted the article told readers Trump had called the letter a fake and denied writing it. The judge said the Journal had conducted a "thoughtful and detailed investigation".

The paper's lawyers argued the story was accurate. They said its reporters neither knowingly published false information nor believed it likely false. Gayles also called the lawsuit's references to Ghislaine Maxwell a "red herring". He said they did not show the reporters had serious doubts.

The letter at the centre

The Wall Street Journal published the story on 17 July 2025. It described a sexually suggestive note and drawing. The note and drawing were said to bear Trump's name in a birthday album put together for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. Trump sued the next day. The paper reported that the letter closed with a wish that every day be "another wonderful secret". Trump denied writing it. He called the article false, malicious and defamatory. The House Oversight Committee released an image of the letter from Epstein's estate in September 2025. The image bore Trump's signature. The Journal did not originally publish the image.

Ghislaine Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in Epstein's sex-trafficking scheme. She reportedly collected the album.

Defendants, damages and the appeal

The suit named The Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch, News Corp, Dow Jones & Co. and the two reporters behind the story, Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo. Most reports put the damages claim at $10 billion. Variety reported that the initial complaint sought at least $20 billion on two counts of defamation. A Dow Jones spokesperson said: "We're pleased with the court's decision". A spokesperson for Trump's legal team said the president "will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants".

What happens next

An appeal is the route the president's team says it will take. The fee question sits with the Journal. Gayles said the paper could move to recover attorneys' fees. The paper has not said whether it will.