Judge Throws Out Trump's Epstein Lawsuit for Good After Saying He Was 'Grasping at Straws' Against WSJ

A federal judge in Miami has permanently dismissed Donald Trump's £7.5 billion ($10 billion) defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein, ruling that the former president was 'grasping at straws' and had failed to show the paper acted with 'actual malice'.

US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles threw out the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled in the same court. Trump's camp says the fight is not over and plans to press on.

Second Bid Thrown Out 'With Prejudice'

Gayles dismissed the suit with prejudice on Saturday 31 October in a 20-page ruling, CBS News reported. The judge found that Trump had not shown the defendants published defamatory statements with actual malice, the legal standard a public figure must meet.

A dismissal with prejudice bars Trump from refiling the same claims in the same court. He can still appeal the ruling.

'As with his first attempt, he has failed,' Gayles wrote, MeidasNews reported. In April, the same judge dismissed the original complaint, finding that Trump came 'nowhere close' to showing actual malice. Trump's legal team then filed an amended version.

The judge said the amended suit was 'grasping at straws' in trying to 'manufacture' flaws in the newspaper's reporting, CBS News reported.

Disputed Birthday Letter at Centre of Case

The case grew out of a July 2025 Journal report on a sexually suggestive birthday letter bearing Trump's name. The letter appeared in a 2003 album that Ghislaine Maxwell assembled for Epstein's 50th birthday.

According to MeidasNews, the letter featured a drawing of a naked woman and a typewritten exchange between Trump and Epstein. Its closing line wished Epstein a happy birthday and added: 'may every day be another wonderful secret.'

The Journal's story ran as the Trump administration faced mounting pressure over its handling of the Epstein files. Trump called the story 'FAKE' and denied writing or signing the letter. He sued the Journal, its publisher Dow Jones, parent company News Corp, News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson, chairman emeritus Rupert Murdoch, and reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo, seeking £7.5 billion ($10 billion), NBC News reported.

House lawmakers later subpoenaed Epstein's estate and obtained a redacted copy of the birthday book, which included the letter. Karoline Leavitt, then White House press secretary, said at the time: 'It's very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.'

Judge Rejects Claims of 'Sloppy' Reporting

Trump's lawyers argued that the reporters saw the letter without obtaining a physical copy and failed to properly investigate Maxwell's role. Gayles rejected that argument.

According to the ruling, the Journal contacted Trump and his representatives, sought comment from the Justice Department and the FBI, tried to reach Maxwell and approached others connected to the album. The paper also included Trump's denials in its original coverage, MeidasNews reported. Gayles described the work as a 'thoughtful and detailed investigation.'

'In effect, President Trump argues that once he declared the Letter a "fake," Defendants should have disregarded everything else they learned in their investigation and not published the story,' the judge wrote.

Trump's team leaned on Maxwell's later interview with the Justice Department, in which she said she did not remember Trump submitting a birthday letter. That interview took place after the article was published. Gayles called the Maxwell references 'a red herring' and said they did not show the journalists knew they were publishing falsehoods.

The judge did not rule on the letter's authenticity or on the truth of the Journal's reporting. His decision addressed a narrower question: had Trump plausibly alleged that the paper knowingly published falsehoods or recklessly disregarded the truth? Twice now, Gayles has concluded that he had not.

Trump Signals Appeal as Fees Fight Looms

A spokesperson said Trump 'will continue to press forward' with the lawsuit against the Journal and the other defendants, CBS News reported. A source familiar with his legal strategy said the decision will likely be appealed.

The defendants are also seeking attorneys' fees and costs under anti-SLAPP laws, which are designed to deter lawsuits that target free speech. Gayles found Trump's claims lacked merit but did not award fees, because it remains unresolved which state's law, Florida's or New York's, governs the case, MeidasNews reported.

The defendants have 30 days to file a motion on that question. The judge has not awarded fees. If the defendants succeed, Trump could be ordered to cover the legal costs of the Journal and the other defendants.

The actual malice standard dates to the Supreme Court's 1964 ruling in New York Times Co v Sullivan. It requires public figures suing for defamation to show that a defendant published a defamatory falsehood knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth, a deliberately high bar meant to protect robust reporting on powerful people.

For now, the ruling hands the Journal a clear win in a case that pitted a sitting president against one of the country's most prominent newspapers and the Murdoch media empire behind it.