A federal judge in Florida on Monday dismissed President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over a story about Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein, though Trump was given a chance to file an amended complaint. U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles said Trump had failed to make the case that the article was published with malicious intent, cutting down one of the latest attempts to use the courts as a weapon against reporting he dislikes.
Who Gets Dragged Into Court
Trump filed the lawsuit in July after the newspaper published an article that described a sexually suggestive letter the newspaper said bore Trump’s signature and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday. The dispute centers on a story about Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein, with the legal machinery now being used to fight over what was published and what can be proven. Trump denied writing the letter and called the story “false, malicious, and defamatory.”
The judge’s order did not end the case entirely. Gayles gave Trump a chance to file an amended complaint, leaving the door open for another round in a system where wealth, power, and legal firepower can stretch out a fight long after the original reporting has already landed.
What the Court Said
In the order, Gayles wrote that Trump had failed to argue that the article was published with the intent to be malicious. That finding undercut the lawsuit at this stage, even as the court stopped short of deciding the underlying factual dispute. Gayles also wrote that “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.”
That line matters because it leaves the central claims unresolved while still dismissing the $10 billion suit as filed. The court’s ruling shows how the legal system can become a battleground for powerful figures seeking to control the narrative around their own conduct, while the actual facts remain tied up in procedure and pleading standards.
Attorneys for the newspaper and Murdoch asked Gayles to rule that the article’s statements were true and therefore could not be defamatory. The judge did not go that far, instead focusing on the failure to show malice. The result is a procedural defeat for Trump, not a final answer on the substance of the reporting.
The Epstein Files and the Backlash Machine
The ruling was another blow in the Trump administration’s efforts to manage fallout over the release of the Epstein files and Trump’s attempts to use the legal system to chill reporting he finds critical of him. The article says the letter was later released publicly by Congress, which subpoenaed the records from Epstein’s estate. That detail places the dispute inside a larger institutional scramble over records, secrecy, and public exposure.
Neither the White House nor a spokesperson for Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, immediately responded to requests for comment. The silence from both sides leaves the court order standing as the latest public marker in a fight where elite institutions, corporate media, and the presidency all collide while ordinary people are left to sort through the wreckage of their manufactured narratives.
The article was written by Meg Kinnard and Josh Boak. The ruling was issued in Florida on Monday, April 13, 2026.