Key facts
- Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch is facing potential dismissal.
- The suit stems from a July 2025 article about a letter allegedly from Trump to financier Jeffrey Epstein.
- Trump denies authoring the letter and claims the Journal published the story despite knowing it was false.
- US district court judge Darrin P Gayles had previously dismissed the case but allowed Trump to refile.
- The judge expressed skepticism about Trump's claims of financial harm and the argument of actual malice.
- Attorneys for the Journal argued that the amended complaint showed no improvement and that the reporting followed journalistic standards.
A federal judge in Florida appeared unconvinced by arguments from Donald Trump's legal team on Wednesday, signaling that his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal may be dismissed for a second time. The lawsuit, refiled in May after an initial dismissal in April, centers on a July 2025 article that included a letter reportedly from Trump as part of a birthday album for financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump denies authoring the letter and contends that the Journal published the story despite being informed of its falsity. His attorney, Alejandro Brito, argued that the Journal failed to adhere to journalistic standards and did not conduct sufficient investigation. Brito also pointed to the limited number of individuals who could attest to the letter's authenticity, including Epstein and the book-binder, both deceased.
However, Judge Darrin P Gayles expressed skepticism regarding claims of financial harm, describing them as "rather conclusory." He also questioned the argument for actual malice, the legal standard required for public figures to win defamation cases. Attorneys for the Journal, including Andrew J Levander and Katherine M Bolger, argued that Trump's team had not sufficiently proven defamation and that the newspaper's reporting, which included Trump's denials, constituted good journalism.
Levander further argued that allowing discovery in the case would be burdensome, given Trump's history of suing media companies. Bolger contended that the reporters, Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, were careful to distinguish between known facts and unknowns. Judge Gayles did not issue a ruling immediately but indicated one would follow soon, and he agreed to stay discovery in the case.