Judge rejects Trump’s second case against Wall Street Journal
A federal judge in Florida has definitively dismissed Trump’s defamation case against the newspaper and Rupert Murdoch.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg){kind=link}
A US federal judge on Saturday dismissed President Donald Trump’s second lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch. The case concerned reporting about a birthday note that Trump allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein, according to the newspaper.
The case was dismissed ‘with prejudice’. This means Trump cannot file this amended complaint again. The ruling came from District Judge Darrin P. Gayles in Miami, who found that Trump had not plausibly shown that the newspaper knowingly published falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
That criterion, known as ‘actual malice’, applies in the United States to defamation cases brought by public figures. It requires more than merely an error or a disputed account: the claimant must show that a media organisation knew a statement was false or consciously disregarded the truth.
In 2025, Trump sought at least 10 billion dollars in damages from The Wall Street Journal, its parent company Dow Jones, Murdoch and the journalists involved. The newspaper had reported at the time on a 2003 note that, according to the report, was part of a birthday album for Epstein. Trump denied writing the note.
The judge had previously dismissed an initial version of the case, but at the time allowed Trump to amend the complaint. The new ruling brings that attempt to an end. According to Reuters, the judge based the decision on the court record; AP reported that the ruling is about 20 pages long.
The ruling does not concern a criminal case against Trump and does not independently establish who wrote the note. The judge assessed whether the legal basis of Trump’s defamation claim met US requirements. The dismissal therefore does not mean that the note’s authorship has been established.
The case is therefore chiefly significant for the relationship between a president and news organisations. For the Journal, the decision means that this specific claim cannot be filed again. For other media, the case shows that reporting on public figures in the US is legally protected, provided a claimant cannot demonstrate that the outlet knowingly or recklessly reported falsehoods.
Also show the region and a close-up
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- A federal judge in Miami dismissed Trump’s second amended defamation case against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch on 31 October 2026.
- The case was dismissed with prejudice.
- According to the reports, the judge found insufficient indications that the media organisations involved had knowingly or recklessly published falsehoods.
Left
Arguments Emphasises that those in power should not discourage criticism and journalistic investigation through costly lawsuits, especially when reporting concerns the public interest.
Values Freedom of the press, scrutiny of power and protection of independent journalism.
Consequences Sees the ruling as protection against legal pressure on the media, but fears that intimidation can continue to cost time and money even without a successful case.
Centre
Arguments Emphasises that public figures should retain access to the courts, but that the high US threshold for defamation claims prevents a disputed publication from immediately leading to liability.
Values Rule-of-law procedures, the right to be heard and a balance between protecting reputation and press freedom.
Consequences Expects future cases to focus chiefly on the quality of source verification and evidence of bad faith.
Right
Arguments Emphasises that the media must also report carefully and verifiably when dealing with a president, and that dismissal of one case does not mean every publication by the newspaper is accurate.
Values Responsibility, protection of reputation and equal application of the law.
Consequences Fears that a high threshold for public figures could increase the scope for careless or one-sided reporting, even though this case was legally unsuccessful.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article’s core is confirmed by AP, Reuters and The Guardian. The text clearly distinguishes between the procedural ruling and the question of who wrote the note.
- confirmed A federal judge in Florida dismissed Trump’s second case against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch. — AP, Reuters and The Guardian report the dismissal by Judge Darrin P. Gayles. source
- confirmed The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the same amended complaint cannot be filed again. — Reuters and The Guardian explicitly refer to dismissal with prejudice. source
- confirmed As a public figure bringing a defamation claim, Trump had to demonstrate actual malice. — AP describes this legal standard and links it to the decision. source
- confirmed Trump sought at least 10 billion dollars in damages. — AP and Reuters mention the size of the claim. source
- confirmed The ruling does not independently determine who wrote the note. — The available reporting describes a procedural dismissal because the defamation claim was insufficiently substantiated, not a finding of authorship. source