A federal judge has dismissed Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its parent company. The case involved an article linking Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, a known sex offender. The court ruled that Trump failed to demonstrate the newspaper acted with “actual malice” in publishing the piece.
Presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, which allows Trump to amend his complaint by April 27. The judge noted that the article, which included Trump’s denial of the claims, didn’t meet the legal threshold for actual malice. This decision underscores the challenges Trump faces as a public figure, given the high bar set by the Supreme Court in the 1964 decision of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This precedent requires proof that the publication knowingly released false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. More details on the ruling can be found here.
The lawsuit was filed in July 2025 against the Journal, two of its reporters, and several affiliated companies. It centered on a January 2025 piece describing a letter to Ghislaine Maxwell, included in a birthday album for Epstein, allegedly bearing Trump’s name. While the Journal contacted Trump, the Justice Department, and the FBI before publication, it also included Trump’s denial, allowing readers to form their own opinions. This factor, according to the judge, further weakened the claim of malice.
Judge Gayles also dismissed Trump’s claim of defamation per quod for lacking allegations of specific financial losses. Meanwhile, the defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute, which is aimed at preventing frivolous lawsuits designed to silence public speech, was denied without prejudice. This decision indicates the court has yet to weigh the merits of Trump’s claims.
In this case, the court’s ruling reflects a cautious approach, acknowledging the complex interplay between defamation law standards and a public figure’s rights. It also highlights the ongoing legal challenges faced by media outlets in high-stakes defamation cases, especially those involving public figures with substantial influence on public life.