Judge Throws Out Trump's Wall Street Journal Epstein-Letter Suit for Good

The ruling. On Saturday, Oct. 31, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the Southern District of Florida dismissed President Donald Trump's amended defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal's publisher, Dow Jones & Co.; its parent, News Corp; News Corp's chairman emeritus, Rupert Murdoch; News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson; and Journal reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo. The case is President Donald J. Trump v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-23232 (order, ECF 80; docket).

The 20-page order's first directive: "The First Amended Complaint ... is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE." That means Trump can't amend or refile these claims in that court. His path now runs through an appeal.

What the story said. The suit is over a July 17, 2025, Journal article headlined "Jeffrey Epstein's Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump." The Journal reported that a letter bearing Trump's name, which its reporters said they reviewed, was part of a 2003 album Ghislaine Maxwell assembled for Epstein's 50th birthday. It described typewritten text framed by what appeared to be a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman and a signature, "Donald," below her waist. Trump has denied writing it from the start. Before the story ran, he told the Journal, "This is not me. This is a fake thing," the order recounts. He sued the next day, July 18, 2025, seeking at least $10 billion on each of two counts (complaint).

Second try, same problem. Gayles first dismissed the case in April, without prejudice, and gave Trump a chance to fix it (ECF 59, later superseded by an amended order correcting clerical errors). He also refused Trump's request to take evidence from the Journal before refiling (ECF 66). Trump filed an amended complaint in May. Among its new details, it alleged that Trump personally told Murdoch he hadn't signed or sent the letter, and that Murdoch replied he would "handle it."

"As with his first attempt, he has failed," Gayles wrote Saturday.

The legal test. Under the Supreme Court's 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a public figure suing for defamation must show "actual malice." That means the publisher knew a statement was false, or published it with reckless disregard for whether it was true. Courts in this circuit require a plaintiff to lay out facts that make that plausible at the start of the case, before the expensive discovery phase. Gayles opened his order with a passage from Sullivan and found Trump's allegations "conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant."

Point by point, the judge rejected each of Trump's theories:

• The denial. Trump argued the Journal should not have published after he called the letter fake. Gayles wrote that if that were the law, "any time a public figure or his team denies an accusation, journalists would be immediately blocked from publishing negative or contradictory press." He noted the article "did not ignore or minimize" Trump's denial, which he said makes malice less plausible.
• The investigation. Gayles wrote that the article "details a thoughtful and detailed investigation." He listed the outreach: Trump and his team, the Justice Department, the FBI, Maxwell and her lawyer, others named in the album and people involved in binding it. "Grasping at straws, the Amended Complaint attempts to manufacture flaws with the investigation," he wrote. He saw no meaningful difference between reviewing the letter and holding a copy.
• Maxwell. Trump's own complaint says Maxwell later told the Justice Department, under penalty of perjury, that she did not remember him submitting a letter. Gayles said that means she "had little to offer" the reporters, and called the Maxwell argument "a red herring." Her interview also came after the article ran.
• Omissions and the follow-up. Choices about what to include are not malice, he wrote. And the Journal's Sept. 8, 2025, follow-up comparing signatures includes "several examples" where Trump's real signature and sketches resemble those in the letter.

The judge added that the complaint was "devoid of any non-conclusory allegations" about Thomson's alleged malice, and that the second count independently failed for lack of specific money losses.

What the judge did not decide. He did not decide whether Trump wrote the letter. "Whether President Trump was the author of the Letter ... [is a] question[] of fact that cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss," he wrote. He again declined to consider the birthday-book pages that the House Oversight Committee released in September 2025 from Epstein's estate, because Trump disputes they are authentic. He also did not rule on whether the article was true.

Fees. The defendants asked to make Trump pay their legal bills under state anti-SLAPP laws, which target suits meant to punish speech on public issues. Gayles wrote that he "agrees that President Trump's defamation claims lack merit," but he did not decide whether fees are owed, because the parties have not fully briefed whether Florida's statute or New York's applies. He kept jurisdiction and set a deadline: any fee motion "shall be filed within thirty (30) days," with a choice-of-law discussion.

Reaction. Dow Jones told CNBC, "We're pleased with the court's decision." A spokesman for Trump's legal team said, "President Trump will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants. The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions." CNBC reported the spokesman confirmed Trump plans to appeal; CBS News cited a source saying it likely will be. An appeal would go to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. As of early Sunday, we found no post about the ruling from Trump, the White House or its rapid-response accounts.