On a Monday in April, a federal court in Florida set aside President Trump's ten-billion-dollar defamation claim against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, a case born from reporting on the president's past ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The ruling is less a verdict on the story than a judgment about the shape of the complaint itself: the judge found that the president had not argued the crucial point of actual malice that public figures must establish. Because the door has been left open for an amended filing, the matter remains suspended rather than concluded, and the deeper questions abo
Judge Dismisses Trump's $10 Billion Defamation Suit Against WSJ and Murdoch, But Allows Amended Complaint
The dismissal rests on how the complaint was pleaded, not on whether the letter is genuine.
Mark
A $10 billion lawsuit gets tossed. Is that a loss for Trump, or just a delay?
Mimi
Somewhere in between. The judge dismissed it but let Trump file an amended complaint, so the case isn't over. It's a setback on how the suit was written.
Mark
What exactly was missing?
Luke
The judge said Trump failed to make the argument that the article was published with malice. That's the standard for a public figure. The reporting doesn't tell us the finer detail of what the complaint said or didn't say.
Mark
The Journal's lawyers wanted a ruling that the story was true. Did they get one?
Mimi
No. The judge said whether Trump wrote the letter, or was Epstein's friend, are fact questions that can't be resolved at this stage.
Luke
Right, and that matters. The dismissal is not a finding that the letter is real or fake. Anyone reading it as vindication for either side is going beyond what the order says.
Mark
Where did the letter come from?
Mimi
The Journal described it as bearing Trump's signature, in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. Congress later subpoenaed Epstein's estate and released it publicly. Trump denies writing it.
Luke
Worth noting that the Journal's description is the newspaper's account, and the denial is Trump's. The court hasn't decided between them.
Mark
And what comes next?
Mimi
Whether Trump refiles, and whether he pleads malice. Neither the White House nor Dow Jones had commented when this was reported.
Il Polso
- A federal judge in Florida tossed a $10 billion defamation suit that has drawn the president into a fierce legal fight with one of the nation's most influential newspapers.
- The dismissal turns on a single missing element, actual malice, leaving the core dispute over an Epstein birthday letter unresolved and contested.
- The president now has room to refile an amended complaint, and his lawyers must decide whether to plead the malice argument more directly.
- The ruling arrives amid continuing fallout from the Epstein files, and the case could tangle with that disclosure fight as it moves forward.
On a Monday in April, a federal court in Florida set aside President Trump's ten-billion-dollar defamation claim against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, a case born from reporting on the president's past ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The ruling is less a verdict on the story than a judgment about the shape of the complaint itself: the judge found that the president had not argued the crucial point of actual malice that public figures must establish. Because the door has been left open for an amended filing, the matter remains suspended rather than concluded, and the deeper questions about the letter and the friendship it implies have been set aside for a later day.
On Monday, a federal judge in Florida threw out President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner, Rupert Murdoch. The suit grew out of a Journal article about Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein, which described a sexually suggestive letter bearing what the paper said was Trump's signature. Trump has denied writing it and called the story false and defamatory.
Judge Darrin P. Gayles found that Trump had not argued that the article was published with malice, the central hurdle for a public figure in a defamation case. The judge also declined the newspaper's request to rule that the story was true. Whether Trump wrote the letter or was Epstein's friend remains a question of fact for later.
The dismissal is not final. Trump may file an amended complaint, and the ruling comes as the administration still manages the fallout from its release of the Epstein files. Neither the White House nor Dow Jones immediately commented, and the next question is whether Trump returns to court and pleads malice more directly.
On Monday, a federal judge in Florida threw out President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner, Rupert Murdoch. The case grew out of a story about Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The dismissal is not final, though: the judge left the door open for Trump to file an amended complaint.
U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles wrote in his order that Trump had not made the argument that the article was published with malice. That is the central hurdle in a defamation case brought by a public figure, and the judge found the complaint fell short of it.
The suit dates to July. Trump had promised to sue almost as soon as the Journal published its article, which put fresh attention on his well-documented relationship with Epstein. The piece described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper said carried Trump's signature. According to the Journal, the letter was part of an album compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003.
The letter later became public through Congress, which subpoenaed the records from Epstein's estate and released it. Trump has denied writing it and called the story "false, malicious, and defamatory."
Lawyers for the newspaper and Murdoch asked Gayles to go further and rule that the article's statements were true, and therefore could not be defamatory. The judge declined. He wrote that whether Trump was the author of the letter, or was Epstein's friend, were questions of fact that could not be settled at this stage of the litigation. In other words, the dismissal rests on how the complaint was pleaded, not on any finding about whether the letter is genuine.
The ruling lands as the Trump administration continues to manage fallout from its release of the Epstein files. It also adds to a pattern in which the president has turned to the courts against reporting he considers critical of him, a strategy critics describe as an effort to chill coverage.
Neither the White House nor a spokesperson for Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, immediately responded to requests for comment. What to watch next is whether Trump files an amended complaint, whether it pleads malice more directly, and how any renewed case intersects with the continuing Epstein disclosures.
Citazioni salienti
Whether President Trump was the author of the Letter or Epstein's friend are questions of fact that cannot be determined at this stage of the litigation.— Judge Darrin P. Gayles, in his order
The story was false, malicious, and defamatory.— President Donald Trump
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su The Economic Times ↗
Politics & Governance