A federal judge in Florida dismissed President Trump's defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal on Monday, ruling that the complaint failed to show the newspaper acted with "actual malice" when it published a story last summer alleging Trump sent a lewd birthday letter to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Trump's legal team says it will refile.
U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles issued a 17-page order finding that Trump, as a public figure, did not meet the high bar required to sustain a defamation claim. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the case is not dead. Trump has until April 27 to file an updated complaint.
The ruling lands in the middle of an already crowded legal landscape for the administration. Trump has been clashing with courts on multiple fronts, from birthright citizenship to immigration enforcement. This case is different, it's personal, not policy, but it carries the same combative energy.
The Wall Street Journal published its article on July 17, 2025. It reported that a letter bearing Trump's signature appeared in a 2003 birthday album assembled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's 50th birthday. Trump called the letter a fake at the time and filed suit seeking $10 billion for what he described as damage to his reputation.
Dow Jones, the Journal's publisher, and its parent company News Corp defended the accuracy of the article. Trump's lawsuit named both entities along with other defendants.
Before publication, the Journal's reporters sought comment from Trump, the Justice Department, and the FBI, and the published story included Trump's denial. That detail proved central to Judge Gayles's reasoning.
Under the Supreme Court's New York Times v. Sullivan framework, public figures who sue for defamation must show that a publisher acted with "actual malice", meaning the outlet either knew the material was false or published it with reckless disregard for the truth. It is one of the hardest standards to meet in American law.
Judge Gayles found Trump's complaint fell well short. As the Washington Examiner reported, the judge wrote bluntly in his order:
"The Complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite."
Gayles noted that the Journal followed normal journalistic practices, reaching out for comment, contacting federal agencies, and printing the subject's denial. That pattern, in the judge's view, undercut any claim that the paper deliberately avoided the truth.
The judge wrote that the complaint and the article itself "confirm that defendants attempted to investigate," as the Washington Times noted. Because Trump had not plausibly alleged actual malice, the judge concluded, "both Counts must be dismissed."
The president framed the ruling not as a loss but as a procedural step. Trump posted on Truth Social that the order amounted to a request to refile, not a final judgment against him.
Just The News reported that Trump wrote on the platform:
"Our powerful case against The Wall Street Journal, and other defendants, was asked to be re-filed by the Judge. It is not a termination, it is a suggested re-filing, and we will be, as per the Order, re-filing an updated lawsuit on or before April 27th."
That framing has some basis. A dismissal without prejudice does leave the door open. But the judge's language was not exactly an invitation. Gayles made clear that the complaint as filed did not come close to the required standard, and any refiled version will have to clear the same bar.
A spokesman for Trump's legal team struck a more aggressive tone in a statement obtained by Breitbart News:
"President Trump will follow Judge Gayles's ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other Defendants."
The spokesman added that Trump would "continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American People."
Trump had publicly warned the Journal and News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch before the article ran. A Truth Social post from the president's account stated plainly:
"The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued."
The Journal published anyway. And it printed Trump's denial within the article. That decision, to include the denial rather than suppress it, is precisely what Judge Gayles cited as evidence of standard journalistic practice rather than reckless disregard for the truth.
It is a frustrating paradox for any public figure pursuing defamation: the more a newspaper documents your objections, the harder it becomes to prove malice. The law rewards the process of reaching out for comment, even when the subject insists the underlying story is false.
The April 27 deadline gives Trump's legal team roughly two weeks to file an amended complaint that addresses the judge's concerns. The core challenge remains the same. Trump must plausibly allege that the Journal knew the birthday letter was fake, or acted with reckless disregard for its authenticity, and published anyway.
That is a steep climb. The judge's order already credited the Journal for contacting multiple sources and including the president's denial. Any refiled complaint will need new factual allegations that change the calculus, evidence of internal communications, for instance, or testimony suggesting the paper's reporters had reason to doubt the letter's authenticity and pressed ahead regardless.
The administration has had better luck in other courtrooms recently. The Fifth Circuit handed Trump a significant win on mandatory detention as that issue moves toward the Supreme Court. But defamation law operates on different terrain, and the actual-malice standard has protected the press, sometimes rightly, sometimes not, for more than sixty years.
National Review's Andrew C. McCarthy noted the dismissal in his coverage, confirming the core facts: a federal judge in Florida dismissed the suit, and it centered on the Journal's reporting about a note it said Trump provided for Epstein's 50th birthday celebration.
Judge Gayles himself signaled that the door is not fully shut. He wrote that because the complaint failed to adequately allege actual malice, the court "declines to address" other issues in the case at this stage. That language suggests the judge is willing to look at a stronger filing, but it does not promise a different outcome.
Trump's willingness to pursue a $10 billion defamation case against one of America's most prominent newspapers is consistent with his long-running posture toward legacy media. He has repeatedly argued that major outlets publish damaging stories they know to be false, shielded by legal standards that make accountability nearly impossible.
He is not wrong about the difficulty. The actual-malice standard, as applied, gives major publications enormous latitude. A newspaper can publish a damaging claim, include a denial, and point to its "journalistic process" as a shield, even if the underlying claim turns out to be fabricated. The question is whether the law should work that way, and reasonable people disagree.
The administration has been engaged in confrontations with institutional opponents across multiple fronts. This lawsuit fits a broader pattern: Trump pushing back against what he sees as a media establishment that operates with impunity.
Whether the refiled complaint can clear the bar Judge Gayles set remains to be seen. The facts of the original article, reporters reaching out, printing denials, contacting federal agencies, will not change. Trump's team will need something new.
The actual-malice standard was built to protect the press from powerful plaintiffs. Whether it also protects the press from accountability when it gets the story wrong is a question this case may eventually force into the open, if the refiled complaint can survive where the first one did not.
