A federal judge has permanently dismissed Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, which was centered on reporting that detailed Trump’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein. U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, based in Miami, characterized the lawsuit as an instance of the former president “grasping at straws” and ruled that Trump failed to demonstrate that the defendants exhibited actual malice in their reporting, a crucial requirement for defamation cases involving public figures.
Judge’s Ruling and Implications
The judge dismissed the case “with prejudice,” which means it cannot be refiled, making the dismissal permanent. This ruling represents a significant setback for Trump and his administration, which has consistently maintained adversarial relations with various news organizations throughout his second term. In addition to his clash with the Journal, Trump is also entangled in lawsuits involving other media outlets such as the BBC, The Associated Press, and, most recently, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, who are suing for restored access after being excluded from the White House earlier this year.
The former president frequently denounces media outlets, often labeling them as “fake news” and launching verbal attacks on their journalists when he disagrees with their reporting.
Background of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit emerged from a story published by the Journal last year, which claimed to feature a suggestive letter and drawing purportedly linked to Trump, allegedly included in a 2003 album for Epstein’s 50th birthday. The letter, reportedly curated by the disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, featured a hand-drawn depiction of a naked woman and concluded with the message, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump has vehemently denied any involvement, calling the reporting “false, malicious, and defamatory.”
In court, Trump’s legal team accused the Journal and its reporters of “knowingly and recklessly” publishing false and defamatory statements that caused significant financial and reputational harm to the president.
Previous Hearings and Legal Standards
This is not the first time the lawsuit has faced dismissal. Initially dismissed in April, the court allowed Trump the opportunity to amend his complaint, which he did in May. However, in Saturday’s ruling, Judge Gayles referenced the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which established a high bar for public figures to prove actual malice in defamation claims.
Judge Gayles concluded that the amended complaint failed to adequately plead actual malice, citing that the allegations were often vague, inconsistent, or irrelevant to the question of whether the defendants knew or should have known the statements were false. He noted that the Journal’s article did not ignore Trump’s denial but rather informed readers of his objection to the letter’s authenticity. Furthermore, the judge found that several other claims within the lawsuit lacked merit.
