Federal Judge Dismisses Donald Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against The Wall Street Journal
A United States judge has formally dismissed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against The Wall Street Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones. U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles issued the ruling with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be brought to court again. The litigation centered on a 2023 report regarding a birthday book created for the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which allegedly included a letter attributed to Trump.
The dispute began after the publication featured a 2003 message purportedly written and signed by Trump as part of a collection for Epstein’s 50th birthday. According to the newspaper, the letter contained suggestive text—including the observation that “enigmas never age”—and featured a hand-drawn outline of a woman’s figure. Trump has consistently denied authorship of the document, claiming it was fabricated and that the newspaper’s coverage was intended to slander him.
This was the second attempt by Trump’s legal team to pursue the claim, following an earlier failed effort that sought $20 billion in damages. In his 20-page decision, Judge Gayles criticized the legal action, stating that the plaintiff was “grasping at straws” to manufacture problems with the newspaper’s investigative work. The judge emphasized that the report was the result of a thorough and detailed investigation.
Central to the judge’s reasoning was the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of the press. To succeed in a defamation suit of this nature, the law requires the plaintiff to prove “actual malice,” a significant legal threshold necessitating evidence that the publisher knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Trump’s attorneys had argued that because the former president denied writing the note when questioned by reporters, the outlet should have ceased its investigation and refrained from publishing. Judge Gayles rejected this argument, noting that such a precedent would essentially allow public figures to block any negative press simply by issuing a denial. The judge characterized this expectation as contradictory to the fundamental American privilege of free speech. Consequently, the court found that the legal team failed to meet the required burden of proof, leading to the permanent closure of the case.
Sources: BBC News
Aggregated summary. Original: BBC News