MIAMI — A federal judge on Saturday threw out President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, dismissing the case with prejudice — permanently — and writing that the President was “grasping at straws,” the Associated Press reported. US District Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that Trump had not proved the defendants made defamatory statements with actual malice, the legal standard a public figure must meet, and that the lawsuit had attempted to “manufacture” flaws in the Journal’s investigative reporting.
The Ruling
“As with his first attempt, he has failed,” Gayles wrote, in a ruling reported at 20 pages. In the fuller passage quoted from the decision: “As President Trump has not plausibly alleged that each Defendant made defamatory statements with actual malice, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed. And because this is President Trump’s second attempt to allege his claims, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.” A dismissal with prejudice cannot be refiled: the dismissal is permanent, and this case, in this court, is over.
The Story Behind The Suit
The lawsuit concerned a story the Journal published last year describing a sexually suggestive letter and drawing that the paper said bore Trump’s name and was included in an album compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. Trump sued the Journal, its parent company Dow Jones and Murdoch in federal court in Miami, accusing the paper and its reporters of having “knowingly and recklessly” published “numerous false, defamatory, and disparaging statements” that caused “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.” Epstein, the convicted sex offender, died in prison in 2019; Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.
Second Attempt, Same Ending
Saturday’s ruling was the second time Gayles had dismissed the claim. He first threw the suit out in April, finding that Trump had failed to argue the article was published with malice, but gave him leave to file an amended complaint, which Trump did in May. The amended case sought at least $10 billion in damages. Actual malice — the standard set for public figures in American defamation law — requires showing that a statement was published with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard for whether it was true. The judge found the amended complaint did not plausibly allege that standard against each defendant.
What It Settles, And What It Does Not
The ruling ends the Journal case; it makes no finding about the underlying 2003 album or its contents, and it does not rule on the truth of the Journal’s reporting — it rules that the President’s complaint, twice drafted, did not meet the legal test for suing over it. The decision lands two days before the midterm elections, in a campaign season in which the President’s legal fights with news organisations have been a running theme. For the Journal and Murdoch, the case is closed with prejudice. For the President, this particular courtroom door is shut for good.
The WSJ Case — In Short
US District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami on Saturday dismissed with prejudice President Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and Rupert Murdoch over the paper’s story about a letter it said bore Trump’s name in a 2003 birthday album for Jeffrey Epstein. Gayles ruled Trump had not plausibly alleged actual malice, called the suit “grasping at straws,” and noted it was the President’s second attempt — the first was dismissed in April and an amended complaint was filed in May. With prejudice means the case cannot be refiled.
Sources: The Associated Press, November 1, 2026; NBC News reporting of the ruling, November 1, 2026; Reuters reporting via TradingView, November 1, 2026; the ruling of US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, Southern District of Florida, October 31, 2026.
Comments
Loading comments…