President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal's publisher over a Jeffrey Epstein birthday letter has been dismissed by a federal judge in Florida, though he has a brief window to try again.
Party Favor or Party Foul?
Last July, the Wall Street Journal reported that a book created for sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003 included a page bearing Trump's name. The page was described as a typewritten note set inside the outline of a naked woman's body. It ended with the line, "Happy Birthday--and may every day be another wonderful secret," and was signed "Donald," with Trump's signature drawn below the waist to mimic pubic hair. The article also said Trump denied writing the letter and threatened legal action before it was published, at a time when scrutiny of the "Epstein files" and Epstein's long‑running sex trafficking activities was already intense.
Trump Claims Defamation
Trump wasted no time putting up dukes. On the day the article was published, Trump called the letter a "FAKE" on social media and vowed to sue the newspaper.
The next day, he followed through by filing the federal complaint, framing it as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to push back on what it saw as misleading coverage of Epstein‑related issues.
The president's defamation lawsuit was launched in federal court in Miami, Florida, against Dow Jones (the Journal's publisher), News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, CEO Robert Thomson, and the two Wall Street Journal reporters who wrote the piece.
Trump's complaint alleged that "no authentic letter or drawing exists." It claimed the Journal concocted or relied on a fake document to mislead readers about his relationship with Epstein and to suggest that the typewritten note and the risqué illustration were genuinely tied to Trump's signature.
The president argued that the article's description of the letter and its suggestion that Trump and Epstein had "certain things in common" were false, malicious, and intended to damage his reputation. He sought not less than $10 billion in damages plus punitive damages.
Reports at the time said Melania Trump was unhappy about the renewed focus on Epstein and the article's insinuations, and she backed Trump's firm denial that he wrote the birthday note.
WSJ's Defense
Lawyers for Dow Jones responded that the article was true and protected by the First Amendment.
They pointed to a later release by the House Oversight Committee, which obtained the birthday book from Epstein's estate and made a copy of the letter public, as corroboration that the page described in the article actually exists.
The defense also argued that the contents and tone of the letter were consistent with Trump's own history of "locker room" and bawdy public remarks and emphasized that the article included Trump's denial that he wrote it.
A spokeswoman for the publisher highlighted the paper's editorial standards and said the company stood behind the reporting.
A Difficult Legal Standard To Prove
Because Trump is a public figure and a sitting president, his defamation claim had to meet the "actual malice" standard established for such plaintiffs. That standard requires a public statement to be both false and published either with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for whether it was true.
It is not enough to allege that a story is wrong or unflattering; the complaint must plausibly connect the defendants' state of mind to intentional or recklessly indifferent publication of falsehoods. Trump's spokesperson underscored that the suit was meant to send a message, saying, "The President will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American people."
Judge Tosses Trump's Lawsuit
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles in Miami granted a motion to dismiss Trump's complaint.
In his written opinion, Judge Gayles concluded that Trump had not made a valid legal claim of defamation because the complaint "comes nowhere close" to alleging actual malice under the controlling standard.
The judge noted that the Wall Street Journal's reporters had contacted Trump, Justice Department officials, and the FBI before publishing the story, and wrote that both the complaint and the article show that the defendants attempted to investigate rather than deliberately avoid the truth.
Because Trump's own allegations reflected outreach to multiple sources, the court found he had not plausibly alleged that the reporters acted with the required reckless disregard for the truth, and thus the case could not move forward as pleaded.
The Upshot
For now, Judge Gayles' ruling closes this chapter but not necessarily the entire book. The case was dismissed "without prejudice," so Trump has until April 27 to decide whether to file an amended complaint that better explains how the Wall Street Journal supposedly acted with actual malice. A White House spokesperson claims that POTUS already plans to " refile this powerhouse lawsuit."
As you probably know, this isn't Trump's first fight with the media — nor will it be his last. Judges have already tossed a multibillion‑dollar defamation suit he brought against the New York Times and Penguin Random House, and he is also pressing claims against outlets like the BBC over their coverage of his presidency. Taken together, the dismissal in Florida looks less like an endpoint and more like another entry in Trump's ongoing campaign to use defamation law to challenge how powerful news organizations tell his story.
Related Resources:
- Epstein Estate Agrees to $35 Million Settlement With Victims (FindLaw's Courtside)
- A New Lawsuit Accuses the DOJ of Violating the Privacy Of About 100 Epstein Victims (FindLaw's Courtside)
- Released Jeffrey Epstein Financial Documents Show Wall Street Connections, Little Else (FindLaw's Courtside)
