A federal judge in Miami threw out Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch on Saturday, and he did it with prejudice. That means the case is dead. It can't be refiled. U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles said the president was "grasping at straws" and that the suit tried to "manufacture" flaws in the Journal's reporting about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
Think about what that filing was. A sitting president, with the full machinery of the presidency behind him, sued a newspaper and its owner for ten billion dollars over a story about a birthday note. Two journalists were named as defendants alongside the paper. Ten billion dollars is the kind of number designed to make anyone with a byline think twice. Whether it works or not, the threat itself is the weapon.
Who Has the Power
The suit was filed July 18, 2025, a day after the Journal published its report on a sexually suggestive birthday note given to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003, part of a book of letters reportedly collected by Ghislaine Maxwell. The note, according to the paper, ended: "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret." Trump denied writing it, called the story "false, malicious, and defamatory," and sued. A copy of the letter was later released through the House Oversight Committee.
The filing came while his administration faced intense scrutiny over whether it had withheld documents about Epstein's alleged sex crimes, despite promises of transparency. Epstein's victims are estimated to number in the hundreds, according to legal advocates. Epstein died in a New York jail cell in August 2019 before he could be brought to trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide.
Read that sequence again. The documents stay locked. The paper that reports on the contents gets a ten-billion-dollar lawsuit.
What the Court Actually Said
Gayles didn't rule that Trump was wrong about the letter. He ruled that Trump failed to plead "actual malice," the standard from the 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which requires proof that an outlet knowingly published something false or showed reckless disregard for the truth. The judge called the malice allegations "conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant."
He also noted the Journal didn't bury the president's denial. The story, he wrote, "informed readers that President Trump decried the Letter as a fake and denied writing it."
This was the second dismissal. Gayles first tossed the suit in April but gave Trump the chance to amend, which he did in May, now claiming the Journal was reckless in not showing how reporters received and verified the letter. The court let a man with unlimited legal firepower take a second swing. Most people don't get a do-over from a judge.
One Win, Many Fronts
Don't mistake a courtroom loss for a retreat. The president is embroiled in lawsuits involving the BBC, The Associated Press and The New York Times. Most recently, CNN, MS NOW and Politico are suing him for restored access after he banished them from the White House in mid-September. He frequently calls outlets "fake news" and insults their journalists.
The press access fight shows the other lever of control. Winning in court isn't the only way to punish reporters. Cutting them off from the building works fine, and no judge has to approve it first.
The Journal won because a 62-year-old precedent protects reporting from this kind of pressure. But that protection lives in the same court system that let the case run for over a year, and it belongs to outlets with lawyers on retainer. A freelancer or a small independent outlet facing a suit like this wouldn't have the same luck. The legal shield works best for the ones who can afford the fight, and that's worth remembering the next time someone calls the system a level playing field.
- donald trump
- wall street journal
- rupert murdoch
- jeffrey epstein
- defamation lawsuit
- federal judge
- libel
- press freedom