A United States federal judge has dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media executive Rupert Murdoch, delivering a significant legal setback to the president in a dispute involving the newspaper's reporting about his past association with Jeffrey Epstein.
US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles issued the ruling on Saturday, October 31, dismissing Trump's amended complaint with prejudice after finding that it failed to establish sufficient grounds for a defamation claim under the legal standard applicable to public figures.
The decision means Trump cannot simply refile the same complaint in the district court, although his legal team has indicated that it intends to appeal.
The case concerned a July 2025 Wall Street Journal article describing a sexually suggestive birthday letter and drawing allegedly bearing Trump's name in a collection prepared for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003.
Trump has repeatedly denied writing or signing the letter and has maintained that the newspaper's reporting was false.
Court rejects amended defamation complaint
Judge Gayles ruled that Trump's amended lawsuit failed to plausibly establish that the newspaper or other defendants had acted with what American defamation law calls actual malice.
Under the legal standard established by the US Supreme Court, public officials and public figures seeking damages for defamation must show that allegedly false information was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was true.
The requirement is intended to protect freedom of expression and investigative reporting while allowing individuals to pursue claims involving knowingly or recklessly false statements.
In his ruling, Gayles found that the amended complaint relied on allegations that were insufficiently specific and, in some instances, inconsistent with the reporting it challenged.
The judge also considered the newspaper's efforts to seek responses from Trump and other individuals before publication.
According to Reuters, the court described the newspaper's investigation as detailed and rejected the argument that Trump's denial should automatically have prevented publication.
The ruling addressed whether the complaint met the legal requirements necessary to proceed. It did not determine whether Trump personally authored the disputed letter.
The reporting that triggered the lawsuit
The dispute began after The Wall Street Journal published an article in July 2025 concerning a birthday album prepared for Jeffrey Epstein.
The newspaper reported that the album included a letter containing a drawing and text allegedly associated with Trump.
Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, had maintained social relationships with prominent figures in politics, business and entertainment.
Trump acknowledged knowing Epstein in the past but has said the relationship ended years before Epstein's later criminal proceedings.
The president denied that the reported birthday letter was authentic and accused the newspaper of publishing defamatory material.
The Journal defended its reporting and maintained that its journalists had followed appropriate investigative procedures.
Trump subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking at least $10 billion in damages.
The defendants included Dow Jones, the Journal's publisher; News Corporation; Rupert Murdoch; media executive Robert Thomson; and journalists Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo.
The lawsuit alleged that the reporting caused substantial reputational and financial harm.
Why the judge dismissed the case
The court had previously dismissed Trump's original complaint in April 2026 but allowed him to submit an amended version.
His lawyers filed a revised complaint in May, attempting to address the deficiencies identified by the judge.
However, the October 31 ruling found that the amended filing still did not plausibly establish the required element of actual malice.
Gayles rejected the argument that the newspaper's decision to publish despite Trump's denial was, by itself, sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
The judge also noted that the Journal had included Trump's denial in its reporting.
Under American defamation law, the publication of a disputed allegation does not automatically establish that a news organisation knowingly published false information.
The court must consider whether the claimant has presented sufficient factual grounds showing that the publisher knew the material was false or acted with serious doubts about its accuracy.
The judge concluded that Trump's amended complaint had not met that requirement.
Because the president had already been given an opportunity to revise his lawsuit, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
What dismissal with prejudice means
A dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition of the complaint at the district-court level, preventing the same claim from being brought again in that court.
It does not necessarily prevent the losing party from seeking review by a higher court.
Trump's legal representatives said they intended to continue challenging the decision.
The Journal's parent company, Dow Jones, welcomed the ruling.
No appellate decision overturning the dismissal had been established at the time of this report.
The judgment also does not amount to a judicial finding that every claim in the Journal's original reporting was true.
In particular, the court did not make a final factual determination establishing who authored the disputed birthday letter.
The central issue was whether Trump's amended lawsuit had adequately alleged the legal elements necessary for his defamation claim to proceed.
A wider dispute over press freedom
The decision comes amid continuing legal disputes between Trump and major American news organisations.
During his second presidency, Trump has pursued litigation against several media companies and frequently criticised reporting that he considers inaccurate or politically motivated.
Some of those disputes have resulted in settlements, while others have been dismissed or remain before the courts.
The Wall Street Journal case has attracted particular attention because it involves reporting about Epstein, whose criminal history and relationships with influential individuals have remained subjects of intense public scrutiny.
The case also raises broader questions about the relationship between political power, media accountability and the constitutional protection of journalism.
American courts have historically applied a demanding standard to defamation claims brought by public officials.
That standard is intended to protect reporting on matters of public interest while maintaining legal remedies for demonstrably defamatory publications.
The October 31 decision reinforces the importance of that distinction.
What the ruling does not establish
The court's dismissal should not be interpreted as proof that Trump participated in Epstein's criminal activities.
The lawsuit concerned the newspaper's reporting about a disputed document, not a criminal charge against Trump.
Authorities have not accused Trump of participating in Epstein's sex-trafficking crimes in connection with this case.
Likewise, the dismissal does not independently authenticate the disputed birthday letter.
Trump continues to deny authoring it.
Those distinctions are essential to accurately understanding the legal outcome.
What happens next
Trump's legal team has indicated that it intends to appeal the ruling.
Any appeal would involve further judicial review of the district court's decision, rather than an automatic reopening of the dismissed complaint.
The defendants may also pursue outstanding legal matters relating to costs and attorneys' fees, subject to further court proceedings.
For The Wall Street Journal, the ruling represents a significant victory in defending its reporting against the president's defamation claim.
For Trump, it is another legal setback in his continuing disputes with American media organisations.
The established outcome is that a federal judge dismissed his amended $10 billion lawsuit with prejudice because it failed to plausibly allege actual malice.
Whether that decision survives appellate review remains to be determined.
