A federal judge in Miami on Saturday dismissed with prejudice President Donald Trump’s amended defamation lawsuit against media baron Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal. The legal action centered on the newspaper’s reporting regarding a purported 50th birthday letter sent by the president to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Judge Rules on Actual Malice Standard
District Court Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that Trump failed to plausibly demonstrate that the newspaper and other defendants acted with actual malice when publishing the story in July 2025. In a 20-page ruling issued more than six months after dismissing the initial complaint, the judge stated that the amended filing merely attempted to manufacture flaws within the investigation.
By issuing a dismissal with prejudice, Judge Gayles prevented Trump from filing another federal lawsuit making the same claims against Murdoch and the publication. The judge noted that the Journal carried out a thoughtful and detailed investigation, while also rejecting the argument that the paper should have withheld the story simply because Trump denied authoring the document. The court did not make a factual determination on whether Trump actually wrote the letter, which he has strongly denied.
When Judge Gayles initially dismissed the case in April, he permitted Trump to file an amended version to correct identified legal defects. Trump had sought $10 billion in damages from Murdoch and the Journal’s parent company, News Corp.
Reactions and Legal Arguments
A spokesperson for Dow Jones & Co., the newspaper’s publisher, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision in a statement to US Top News and Analysis (cnbc.com) on Saturday. Meanwhile, a representative for Trump’s legal team confirmed to US Top News and Analysis (cnbc.com) that the president intends to appeal the ruling.
The legal representative stated that Trump will continue pursuing the lawsuit against the publication and other defendants to hold accountable those who mislead the public with false reports and smears. Supreme Court precedent requires public figures like Trump to prove that a defendant acted with actual malice when making contested statements.
The amended complaint included new allegations, such as a claim that Murdoch told Trump he would handle the matter during a phone call concerning an article describing the birthday letter, which reportedly featured Trump’s signature. Judge Gayles dismissed all arguments in the updated filing, concluding that accepting the premise that denials can block unfavorable reporting would violate First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and the press.
Saturday’s decision marks another recent legal challenge for Trump in media-related litigation, following an October 22 order by another federal judge in Miami requiring Trump to sit for a deposition by December 11 in a separate $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC.
