Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein cartoon

A federal judge has thrown out US President Donald Trump's $US10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch over a story reporting on his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

US District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed the lawsuit filed in Miami, saying the president was "grasping at straws".

Judge Gayles ruled the president did not prove the defendants made defamatory statements with actual malice as required by law and the suit had attempted to "manufacture" flaws in the newspaper's reporting. 

The lawsuit against the Journal was over a story it published last year describing a sexually suggestive letter and drawing that the paper said bore Mr Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday.

The letter was reportedly collected by disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell as part of a birthday album for Epstein years before he was first arrested in 2006 and subsequently had a falling-out with Mr Trump.

Mr Trump denied writing it and called the story "false, malicious, and defamatory".

The case was thrown out "with prejudice", which means it cannot be refiled again and the dismissal is permanent. 

Here's what to know. 

Trump calls out 'malicious' reporting

The letter bearing Mr Trump's name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret", according to the newspaper.

In his lawsuit, Mr Trump called the alleged birthday greeting "fake" and sought $US10 billion ($14 billion) for what he called damage to his reputation.

News Corp's Dow Jones, the Journal's parent, defended the accuracy of its July 17, 2025, article.

The lawsuit was one of several Mr Trump has filed in his second term against major media outlets over reporting he has characterised as unfair or false.

In asking Judge Gayles to dismiss the case in September, lawyers for the Journal and its billionaire owner Rupert Murdoch wrote that the lawsuit threatened to chill the speech of those who publish content that Mr Trump does not like.

Wasn't the case already dismissed?

Yes. 

Donald Trump's case, originally filed July 18, 2025 against The Wall Street Journal, was thrown out by the same judge, Darrin Gayles, in April of this year.

He said the article did not meet the "actual malice" standard that public figures must clear in defamation.

They must prove not only that a public statement about them was false but also that the media outlet or person who made the statement knew or should have known that it was false.

"This complaint comes nowhere close to this standard," Judge Gayles wrote. 

"Quite the opposite."

Mr Trump was then allowed to refile the lawsuit which he did later that month. 

According to the amended lawsuit, Mr Trump called Mr Murdoch on July 15, 2025 after Journal reporters contacted the White House about the story.

"In response, Murdoch stated, 'I will handle it,' which President Trump reasonably interpreted as meaning that Murdoch believed President Trump, and that the article would not be published," the lawsuit says.

Representatives of Dow Jones did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing or on the allegation regarding Mr Murdoch.

Dow Jones, which News Corp owns, previously said it had full confidence in the Journal's reporting and will defend itself in court.

Mr Murdoch is chairman emeritus of News Corp.

How has the case been permanently thrown out?

In the US, a case being thrown out "with prejudice" means it is permanently over and there is no reason to bring it back to court. 

In Saturday's ruling, the judge cited the Supreme Court's landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 

That decision made it harder for public figures to win libel lawsuits because it requires proof that a media outlet knowingly published something false or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

“The Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice," Judge Gayles wrote.

"Indeed, the allegations regarding malice are conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant to whether Defendants knew or should have known that the statements in the Article were purportedly false."

The judge also noted that the Journal's story did not ignore or minimise Mr Trump's denial.

"Rather, it informed readers that President Trump decried the Letter as a fake and denied writing it."

Judge Gayles also said several other allegations in the lawsuit did not have merit.