The short version
- Judge Darrin P. Gayles indicated the defamation case may be dismissed again after finding the plaintiff’s arguments regarding financial harm and journalistic standards unconvincing.
- Trump’s legal team argued the Wall Street Journal failed to investigate claims about a letter attributed to him in a 2003 Jeffrey Epstein birthday book, despite his denials.
- Defense attorneys contended that including Trump’s denial constituted responsible reporting rather than actual malice, and warned that proceeding to discovery would impose undue burdens.
A federal judge in Florida signaled on Wednesday that a high-stakes defamation lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against the Wall Street Journal is likely to be dismissed. The case, which seeks $10 billion in damages, centers on a July 2025 article reporting that Trump had contributed a letter to a birthday book for financier Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Darrin P. Gayles, who previously dismissed the suit in April, appeared unmoved by arguments from Trump’s legal team during a hearing intended to determine if the case should proceed.
The dispute originates from an article headlined “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.” The publication detailed allegations that Trump authored or signed a letter included in a 2003 birthday tribute to Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019. Trump has consistently denied authoring the letter. His attorneys argue that the newspaper published the story despite being informed of its falsity, claiming this behavior meets the legal threshold for actual malice required in defamation cases involving public figures.
During the proceedings, attorney Alejandro Brito, who represents Trump in this matter as well as a separate defamation suit against the BBC, asserted that the Journal failed to adhere to sufficient journalistic standards. Brito argued that the defendants could not have conducted adequate investigations to make definitive statements about the letter’s authenticity. He noted that only four individuals could potentially verify the claim: Trump himself, who denies it; Epstein, who is deceased; a bookbinder who has also died; and Ghislaine Maxwell, an associate of Epstein who stated she does not recall who participated in the project.
Judge Gayles expressed particular doubt regarding the plaintiff’s claims of financial injury. He characterized the arguments presented by Trump’s counsel as “rather conclusory,” suggesting they lacked the specific evidence needed to demonstrate tangible harm resulting from the publication. When Brito countered that his team had done enough at this preliminary stage and did not need to specify exact financial losses, the judge remained skeptical. This skepticism mirrors the reasoning behind the initial dismissal in April, where Gayles ruled that the original complaint failed to sufficiently plead actual malice.
Defense attorneys for Rupert Murdoch, the Wall Street Journal, and parent company News Corp argued that Trump’s legal team had made no progress in proving defamation. Andrew J. Levander, representing the defendants, stated that the amended complaint filed in May was no stronger than the original version. He urged the court to end what he described as a baseless lawsuit, noting that the judge had previously provided a roadmap for fixing the case which the plaintiff failed to follow.
Katherine M. Bolger, another attorney for the defendants, emphasized that the Journal’s reporting practices actually strengthened their defense against claims of malice. She pointed out that the article included Trump’s denials and that reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo were careful to distinguish between established facts and uncertainties. Bolger argued that this transparency exemplifies good journalism rather than reckless disregard for the truth, which is necessary to prove actual malice.
The defense also raised concerns about the potential burden of discovery if the case were allowed to proceed. Levander warned that given Trump’s history of litigation against media organizations, allowing discovery would place significant strain on both the court and the newspaper. He argued that the plaintiff had mischaracterized the article and that journalists should not be expected to withhold stories solely because a powerful figure denies their accuracy.
Judge Gayles did not issue a formal ruling from the bench during the 90-minute hearing but indicated that a decision would follow soon. He agreed to stay discovery in the case pending this ruling. The outcome will determine whether Trump’s legal strategy of pursuing massive defamation claims against media outlets can survive rigorous judicial scrutiny regarding the high bar for proving actual malice and demonstrable harm.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Judge signals Trump’s defamation lawsuit against Wall Street Journal may be dismissed again
