Judge Tells Donald Trump He Is 'Grasping at Straws' While Tossing Out Defamation Suit Over Epstein

A federal judge in Miami has dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion (£7.4 billion) defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch and other defendants over reporting on an alleged birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. US District Judge Darrin Gayles ruled on Saturday, 31 October 2026, that Trump's amended complaint failed to adequately allege 'actual malice'. The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the same claims cannot be refiled.

Gayles said Trump was 'grasping at straws' and accused the complaint of attempting to 'manufacture' flaws in the Journal's reporting. The ruling did not determine whether Trump wrote the disputed letter. Instead, it assessed whether his lawsuit sufficiently alleged that the defendants published defamatory statements with the required state of mind.

The case centres on a Journal report published in July 2025. It described a sexually suggestive letter and drawing that the newspaper said bore Trump's name and appeared in an album compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. The text ended with a birthday wish referring to 'another wonderful secret', according to the report.

The album was reportedly assembled by Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite later convicted of sex trafficking-related offences. Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Trump denied writing the letter and called the Journal's story 'false, malicious, and defamatory'. His lawsuit accused the newspaper and its reporters of knowingly or recklessly publishing false statements, allegedly causing financial and reputational harm.

The Associated Press reported the dismissal on 31 October. Gayles dismissed Trump's original lawsuit in April but allowed him to submit an amended complaint, which Trump filed in May.

Why the Judge Dismissed the Defamation Claim

Gayles cited the US Supreme Court's 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which established the 'actual malice' standard for public officials bringing defamation claims. Plaintiffs generally must show that a defendant knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true.

'The Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice,' Gayles wrote. He described the allegations as 'conclusory' and 'vague', saying some were inconsistent with the Journal's article or irrelevant to whether the defendants knew their statements were allegedly false.

The judge also noted that the article included Trump's denial. It 'informed readers that President Trump decried the Letter as a fake and denied writing it', he wrote. This formed part of the court's assessment but did not establish the letter's authenticity.

What Happens to Trump's Lawsuit Now

Because the case was dismissed with prejudice after Trump had an opportunity to amend his complaint, the same claims cannot simply be filed again. The ruling is a legal setback, but it does not establish that every detail in the Journal's report was proven in court.

Trump continues to deny writing the letter. The ruling ends this defamation case at district-court level, with the judge concluding that Trump's amended complaint did not adequately allege actual malice under the standard applicable to public figures.