Defamation

A Federal Judge Dismisses Trump's Defamation Lawsuit Against The Wall Street Journal

Trump's failure to properly allege "actual malice" is consistent with his long history of filing shaky legal claims against people who say things he does not like.

Jacob Sullum | 4.13.2026 5:10 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Jen Golbeck/Zuma Press/Newscom/Wall Street Journal)

Last year, President Donald Trump sued The Wall Street Journal, claiming the newspaper had defamed him by reporting that he contributed to a 2003 album marking the 50th birthday of financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was later convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution in Florida and committed suicide in 2019 while facing federal charges involving sex trafficking of minors. On Monday, a federal judge in Miami dismissed that lawsuit without prejudice, meaning Trump can try to correct the legal deficiencies in his initial complaint.

Given the facts of the case, it seems doubtful that Trump can meet that challenge. But even if he can, the sloppiness of his initial complaint is not surprising, since Trump has a long history of filing shaky lawsuits against people whose speech offends him. Although those lawsuits are framed as attempts to vindicate Trump's legal rights, the main point is to punish his adversaries by forcing them to defend against his claims and thereby deter others from crossing him. As Trump sees it, the speech-chilling impact of such litigation is a feature, not a bug.

In the July 17 article at the center of this case, the Journal described a "bawdy" letter that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subsequently obtained from Epstein's estate via a subpoena. The letter features an imaginary dialogue between "Donald" and "Jeffrey" alluding to "certain things" they had in common. "A pal is a wonderful thing," it concludes. "Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret." The letter, which is framed by a sketch of a nude woman's torso, is signed by what the Journal described as "a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair."

Given Trump's well-established friendship with Epstein, it is plausible that he would have participated in the birthday album. But Trump insists the letter is "fake."

In his ruling on Monday, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles said it was premature to address the dispute about the letter's authenticity. But he said Trump failed to adequately allege that the Journal had acted with "actual malice," the standard that the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment requires in defamation cases involving public figures. Under that standard, Trump must show that the Journal made an allegedly defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

Trump's July 18 complaint asserts that the defendants—including Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo, the reporters who wrote the story; Dow Jones, which owns the Journal; News Corporation, which owns Dow Jones; News Corporation CEO Robert Thomson; and Rupert Murdoch, the company's majority owner and emeritus chairman—"knew or should have known" that the statements in the article were false. The complaint adds that the Journal published the article "maliciously, with knowledge of the falsity of the........

© Reason.com