Trump defamation suit against Murdoch, WSJ over Epstein letter dismissed with prejudice

A dismissal with prejudice means the court has ended the lawsuit permanently on those claims. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, it does not give the plaintiff another chance to fix the complaint and refile the same case in that court. This matters because Judge Darrin Gayles had already allowed Trump to amend his original complaint once.

Trump’s amended lawsuit again alleged that Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal defamed him by publishing a story about a disputed birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. Gayles concluded that Trump still had not plausibly alleged actual malice, the required standard for a public figure’s defamation claim.

The ruling blocks Trump from filing another federal suit asserting the same claims against Murdoch and the newspaper. It does not decide whether Trump actually wrote the letter. Trump’s legal team confirmed that he plans to appeal, so the dismissal may still be reviewed by a higher court.

Actual malice is the demanding standard Trump had to meet as a public figure. He needed to plausibly show that the defendants knew the article was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false. Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that the amended complaint still did not make that showing.

The judge rejected Trump’s arguments that the Journal investigated inadequately, omitted important details, or should not have published after he and his representatives denied the letter was authentic. Gayles instead described the newspaper’s work as a “thoughtful and detailed investigation.” He also said the amended complaint tried to manufacture flaws in that investigation.

The court did not decide whether Trump authored the letter. It decided only that the pleaded facts did not support a plausible actual-malice claim. Because Trump failed to cure the defects identified in the first dismissal, Gayles dismissed the amended lawsuit with prejudice. Trump plans to appeal the ruling.

Trump’s amended defamation lawsuit sought $10 billion in damages from Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper is owned by Murdoch’s News Corp., while its publisher is Dow Jones & Co. The requested amount shows the enormous financial scale of the dispute.

The lawsuit concerned the Journal’s July 17, 2025, report about a letter bearing Trump’s signature. The article said the letter was included in an album of letters Epstein was receiving for his 50th birthday. It also described sexual imagery and a message ending, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump denied writing it.

Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed the amended case with prejudice because Trump had not plausibly alleged actual malice. That means the $10 billion claim cannot proceed in the trial court as pleaded. Trump’s legal team confirmed that he plans to appeal, so the requested damages remain part of the dispute, but no award has been made.

A dismissal with prejudice ends the plaintiff’s claims against the named defendants in that action. It prevents Trump from starting another federal lawsuit based on the same allegations against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal. This is stronger than simply sending the complaint back for correction.

Judge Darrin Gayles had previously dismissed Trump’s first complaint but allowed him to amend it. Trump added new details, including an allegation that Murdoch said, “I will handle it,” during a conversation about the article. Gayles rejected those arguments and again found no plausible showing of actual malice.

The immediate result is that the defamation case cannot continue in the district court, and Trump cannot refile the same claims there. The article reports that his legal team confirmed an appeal. An appeal could ask a higher court to review the dismissal, but it does not automatically reopen the case or guarantee a trial.

Judge Darrin Gayles reasoned that a public figure’s denial cannot automatically stop a news organization from publishing a report. If denial alone were enough, public figures could block unfavorable stories whenever they disputed them. Gayles said that result would run afoul of the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of speech and the press.

Trump argued that The Wall Street Journal should not have published its story after he and his representatives denied that the letter was authentic. The article concerned a letter allegedly bearing Trump’s signature and included details about its drawings and message. The Journal reported that it had investigated the matter before publishing.

The ruling does not say that every publication is protected from a defamation claim. Instead, it says Trump still had to plausibly allege actual malice, and his denial did not satisfy that requirement. Gayles described the investigation as thoughtful and detailed. Trump plans to appeal, where a higher court may review whether the dismissal applied the law correctly.

An appeal asks a higher court to review alleged legal or procedural errors in the lower court’s decision. It could leave the dismissal in place, reverse it, or return the case for further proceedings. The article reports that Trump’s legal team plans to appeal, but it does not describe the appeal’s arguments or likely outcome.

The appeals court would generally examine whether Judge Darrin Gayles used the correct legal standard and properly concluded that Trump’s amended complaint did not plausibly allege actual malice. It would review the complaint and the lower court’s ruling, rather than conduct a new trial. Appellate courts generally do not consider new evidence at this stage.

The article says Gayles did not decide whether Trump actually authored the letter. That factual question would not automatically be resolved by an appeal. The higher court would focus on the dismissal and the legal sufficiency of the allegations. This explanation of appellate review uses general U.S. court procedure beyond the article’s specific details.

Defamation generally means publishing a false statement of fact that harms another person’s reputation. A claim usually requires more than an insult or disagreement. It concerns a factual assertion that is legally actionable under the circumstances. The article focuses on Trump’s allegation that the Journal defamed him through its report about the disputed letter.

For public figures, U.S. Supreme Court decisions require proof of actual malice. That means showing that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false. Trump argued that the Journal’s investigation was inadequate and that publication should have stopped after his denial. Judge Gayles rejected those arguments.

Gayles ruled that Trump had not plausibly alleged actual malice. He described the Journal’s investigation as thoughtful and detailed, while emphasizing that the court was not deciding whether Trump wrote the letter. This legal explanation relies on established U.S. law, while the article specifically reports the standard and Gayles’s application of it.