A federal judge in Miami has permanently dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch over the paper's reporting on a birthday letter allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein.
U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, an Obama appointee, issued an order on Saturday granting the Journal's motion to dismiss with prejudice, meaning the president cannot refile another lawsuit over the same issue. The ruling was first reported by the Washington Examiner.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami, accused the paper and its reporters of having "knowingly and recklessly" published "numerous false, defamatory, and disparaging statements" that caused "overwhelming financial and reputational harm" to the president.
The Letter at the Center of the Dispute
The Journal published a story on July 17, 2025, describing a sexually suggestive birthday note allegedly gifted to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. The note includes typed text framed by a hand-drawn outline of what appears to be a woman, with Trump's signature at the bottom near the figure's pelvic region.
According to the Journal's reporting, the note ends with the line: "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret." The letters were reportedly collected by disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for her involvement in Epstein's sex-trafficking scheme.
Trump vehemently denied responsibility for the text, the signature and the artwork. A copy of the birthday letter was later released through the House Oversight Committee.
The Journal's article came as the second Trump administration faced intense scrutiny over whether it had withheld documents about Epstein's alleged sex crimes, despite promises of transparency.
Judge: President 'Grasping at Straws'
Gayles had previously dismissed the suit in April, saying Trump failed to make the argument that the article was published with the intent to be malicious. But he gave the president a chance to file an amended complaint, which he did in May.
In Saturday's ruling, the judge cited the Supreme Court's landmark 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which requires public figures to prove that a media outlet knowingly published something false or showed a reckless disregard for the truth — the standard known as "actual malice."
"The Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice," Gayles wrote, adding that the president was "grasping at straws" with the $10 billion case, according to NPR.
POLITICO reported that Gayles found Trump's attorneys had failed to credibly allege "actual malice" in the complaint against the paper.
Wider Legal Battles With the Press
The ruling is a setback for Trump and his administration, which have both pursued adversarial relationships with news organizations during his second term. In addition to the Journal, the president is embroiled in lawsuits involving the BBC, The Associated Press and — most recently — CNN, MS NOW and Politico, which are suing him for restored access after he banished them from the White House in mid-September.
Online, a post from an Instagram account summarized the development with a brief caption noting that a federal judge had dismissed the president's lawsuit, reflecting how quickly the story circulated among supporters and critics alike.
Our Take
The president deserves a legal system that treats him fairly, and this ruling shows us exactly what happens when the same old rules are applied by the same old players. A judge appointed by Barack Obama — a man whose administration weaponized federal agencies against its political enemies — has now permanently shut the door on Trump's effort to hold the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch accountable. And he did it with a smirk, calling the president's case "grasping at straws."
Folks, this is the game: the legacy media can publish whatever it wants, no matter how damaging or allegedly fabricated, and as long as they can hide behind the "actual malice" shield, there is no recourse. The 1964 Sullivan standard was designed for a different era — one before a handful of corporate press barons coordinated a daily assault on the legitimacy of a sitting president.
But here is the truth: Trump has spent years fighting these battles, and he has won far more than he has lost. The American people understand that the corporate press is not their friend — they are the mouthpiece of the very establishment that Trump was elected to dismantle. This ruling is a temporary setback, not a final verdict. The president will keep fighting, and he has the support of millions of patriots who see the media for what it is.
So we ask you, folks: should a sitting president have the right to hold the press accountable when it publishes false and defamatory claims? Or does the media's "actual malice" shield amount to a license to lie? Let us know what you think.
