A federal judge in Florida has dismissed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump against The Wall Street Journal. The lawsuit centered around a report detailing a birthday card Trump purportedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein over twenty years ago.
U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that Trump’s amended claim did not meet the stringent criteria necessary to prove that the newspaper acted with “actual malice” in its reporting. This key factor was the same flaw present in Trump’s initial attempt to sue the publication.
The judge stated, “As President Trump has not plausibly alleged that each Defendant made defamatory statements with actual malice, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.” He further noted that since this was Trump’s second attempt at filing the suit, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning he could not refile it.
Trump’s legal action followed a July 2026 article in the Journal, which discussed a birthday book compiled for Epstein by Ghislaine Maxwell, which allegedly included a card from Trump. This card reportedly depicted a crude drawing and a note that suggested a fictional conversation between Trump and Epstein, who later faced serious criminal charges. Trump has denied any involvement with the card, claiming it was fabricated.
The Wall Street Journal’s attorneys argued that the article was thoroughly investigated and included Trump’s denial of the card’s authenticity. They emphasized that the publication had sought comments from Maxwell, and even acknowledged Trump’s claims in their reporting.
Despite Trump’s allegations of reputational and financial harm due to the article, the judge concluded that asserting someone sent a birthday card does not constitute defamatory behavior. The ruling pointed out that the article’s assertions were substantially true, especially since Epstein’s estate later released a card matching the Journal’s description.
Trump’s legal team expressed disappointment but claimed the ruling was predictable given the circumstances. They had previously contended that the Journal’s failure to include an image of the card in its initial report indicated a lack of authenticity, a point countered by the release of the card by Epstein’s estate.
As this case unfolds, it underscores the complexities of defamation law, especially when public figures are involved, and raises questions about the balance between free speech and protecting one’s reputation.
Photo credit: Anna Moneymaker
