Judge dismisses Trump's defamation lawsuit over Epstein birthday letter report

Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed Trump’s defamation case against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch. The lawsuit challenged a report about an alleged 2003 birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump had sought US$10 billion in damages.

The dismissal was “with prejudice.” In practical terms, Trump cannot file an amended version of this same claim in that court. This differs from the judge’s earlier rejection in April, which allowed Trump to try again with an amended complaint.

Gayles ruled that Trump had failed, on both attempts, to show that the defendants acted with “actual malice.” The ruling ends this lawsuit as filed, although the article does not describe any appeal or other legal action. The decision also leaves the report and Trump’s past links to Epstein under continued public scrutiny.

Defamation is a legal claim that a published, false statement harmed a person’s reputation. In this dispute, Trump argued that the Wall Street Journal’s report was defamatory because it described an alleged 2003 birthday letter he sent to Jeffrey Epstein. The report said the letter included a drawing of a naked woman.

Trump’s lawsuit sought US$10 billion from the newspaper and Rupert Murdoch, who founded News Corp., the company that owns the Wall Street Journal. The House Oversight Committee later published a copy of the alleged note, including a dialogue between “Donald” and “Jeffrey,” a signature, and the nude outline.

The judge rejected Trump’s claim because he failed to establish “actual malice.” The article does not state every factual argument Trump made about the report. It does show why the case mattered: the publication intensified scrutiny of Trump’s past links to Epstein and his handling of the controversy.

In US defamation law, “actual malice” generally means that the publisher knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false. It does not mean personal hatred or ordinary ill will. This definition comes from established US law, not details supplied in the article.

Trump needed to meet that demanding standard because he is a highly prominent public figure suing over reporting about a major public controversy. He had to show more than that the Wall Street Journal’s report was damaging or disputed. He needed evidence that the newspaper or other defendants published it while knowingly or recklessly ignoring likely falsity.

Judge Darrin Gayles said Trump failed to establish actual malice on both attempts to bring the claim. The judge therefore dismissed the case with prejudice. The article does not describe the evidence presented by either side, but the ruling prevents Trump from amending this lawsuit again.

Trump’s lawsuit sought US$10 billion from the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch. The case grew from the newspaper’s July 2025 report about an alleged 2003 birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. The report said the note apparently included a drawing of a naked woman.

The story generated attention beyond the courtroom. Democrats and members of Trump’s own Republican Party rejected his efforts to dismiss the saga as a hoax. They called for the full release of legal files on Epstein. The House Oversight Committee also published a copy of the alleged note.

The political campaign around the issue has been substantial. Ahead of the 3 November US midterm elections, Democrats reportedly spent more than US$35 million on Epstein-related advertisements. Trump’s name appears repeatedly in released documents, but he denies wrongdoing and has not been charged with criminal offences connected with the affair.

For Trump, the immediate consequence is that his US$10 billion lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice. He cannot submit an amended version of this same case. The judge’s reason was that Trump failed to show actual malice, the required level of fault identified in the ruling.

For the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, the decision removes this lawsuit as a current legal threat, based on the facts provided. It does not make every statement in future reporting immune from challenge. It resolves this claim and leaves the published report at the center of continuing political discussion.

For public reporting, the case highlights the risks and protections surrounding coverage of powerful people. The article says the report intensified scrutiny of Trump’s links to Epstein and prompted calls for released files. The ruling may reinforce the need for strong evidence, careful sourcing, and attention to legal standards when reporting disputed claims.

Judge Darrin Gayles handled Trump’s lawsuit and dismissed it with prejudice. The Wall Street Journal published the July 2025 report that prompted the case. Rupert Murdoch, identified as a media magnate and News Corp. founder, was also named as a defendant because News Corp. owns the newspaper.

Congress played a role by passing a law requiring publication of the so-called “Epstein Files.” The House Oversight Committee separately published a copy of Trump’s alleged birthday note. These actions increased the amount of material and attention surrounding the dispute.

The Department of Justice was involved in the release process. The article says Trump fought for months to prevent the department from releasing the files, then signed the congressional law requiring their publication. The article does not describe the department’s litigation role in the defamation case. Trump denies wrongdoing and has not been charged in the affair.

US law gives public officials and other public figures a demanding burden to protect reporting on matters of public concern. This is established US legal doctrine, while the article specifically reports that Trump failed to prove “actual malice.” The standard generally requires proof that a publisher knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded its truth.

The rule matters because public figures can answer criticism through public platforms and because lawsuits may discourage news organizations from investigating powerful people. A claim that a report was embarrassing or harmful is therefore not enough by itself. The plaintiff must meet the higher fault standard.

Trump’s case involved a president, a major newspaper, and reporting about Jeffrey Epstein, a notorious sex offender. Judge Darrin Gayles said Trump failed to establish actual malice in both versions of his lawsuit. The case was dismissed with prejudice, preventing another amended filing in that action.