WASHINGTON, November 1, 2026: A US federal judge has dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on an alleged birthday message to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, ruling that the newspaper's reporting was protected under the First Amendment.

US District Judge Darrin Gayles rejected the lawsuit against the newspaper's parent company, Dow Jones, and media executive Rupert Murdoch, finding that Trump's legal team had failed to demonstrate that the defendants knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The ruling represents a significant legal victory for the newspaper and reinforces the constitutional protections afforded to journalists reporting on matters involving public officials.

The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, preventing Trump from bringing the same claims again in the district court, although the ruling may still be subject to appeal.

Dispute Originated from Alleged Epstein Birthday Message

The legal confrontation began after The Wall Street Journal published an investigation concerning a collection of messages reportedly assembled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003.

According to the newspaper, the birthday album included a letter bearing Trump's name and a signature resembling his.

The message allegedly contained suggestive language alongside an illustration outlining a woman's body.

The newspaper reported that the letter included references to friendship and secrets, attracting widespread attention because of Trump's past social association with Epstein.

Trump has repeatedly denied writing, signing or authorizing the message.

He has maintained that the document is fabricated and accused the newspaper of publishing false and damaging information about him.

The disputed letter reportedly dates from a period before Epstein faced criminal charges involving sexual abuse.

Trump and Epstein were photographed together at social events during the 1990s, including at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

However, the existence of their past social association does not establish the authenticity of the disputed birthday message.

Trump Initially Sought $20 Billion in Damages

Following publication of the newspaper's report, Trump initiated legal proceedings against Dow Jones and Murdoch, alleging that the article had damaged his reputation.

His original complaint sought $20 billion in damages.

After the court dismissed that version of the lawsuit, Trump's legal team submitted an amended complaint reducing the damages claim to $10 billion.

The revised filing continued to challenge the newspaper's reporting and alleged that the defendants had acted improperly by publishing the disputed material.

In his latest ruling, Judge Gayles rejected those arguments and concluded that the complaint failed to meet the legal standard required for a public official to pursue a defamation claim.

The judge also criticized the attempt to identify deficiencies in the newspaper's investigation, describing the lawsuit as an effort to manufacture weaknesses in the reporting.

Judge Cites Constitutional Protection for Journalism

A central issue in the case was whether The Wall Street Journal had acted with what US defamation law defines as actual malice.

Under the standard established for lawsuits brought by public officials, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant published a false statement while knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth.

The requirement creates a substantial legal threshold intended to protect freedom of expression and investigative journalism.

Judge Gayles found that Trump's legal team had not presented sufficient grounds to establish that the newspaper met this standard.

The court noted that the Journal had undertaken a detailed investigation before publishing its article.

According to the ruling, the newspaper's decision to proceed with publication despite Trump's denial did not, by itself, demonstrate reckless disregard for the truth.

The judge emphasized that journalists are not legally required to abandon an investigation simply because the subject rejects the allegations being examined.

Such a requirement, the court reasoned, would allow public figures to prevent unfavorable reporting merely by denying the underlying claims.

The judge concluded that this approach would conflict with the First Amendment's protection of press freedom.

Trump's Denial Was Not Enough to Establish Actual Malice

Trump's lawyers argued that the newspaper should have refrained from publishing the story after he informed its journalists that he had not written the alleged letter.

The legal team maintained that the publication proceeded despite being aware of his denial.

However, the court distinguished between publishing information disputed by a public figure and knowingly publishing false information.

Judge Gayles found that the complaint did not sufficiently establish that the newspaper knew its reporting was false or deliberately ignored compelling evidence of falsity.

The ruling emphasized that a denial from the subject of a news investigation does not automatically invalidate information gathered through other reporting methods.

The decision therefore focused on the legal sufficiency of Trump's allegations rather than making a definitive determination about who authored the disputed letter.

The authenticity of the message remains contested.

Epstein Documents Have Generated Political Controversy

The original newspaper investigation appeared amid heightened political scrutiny of the Trump administration's handling of records connected to Epstein.

Epstein, a wealthy financier with connections to prominent figures in politics, business and entertainment, became the subject of extensive criminal investigations involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of underage girls.

He died in federal custody in New York in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. His death was officially ruled a suicide.

The handling and disclosure of records associated with Epstein have remained politically sensitive in the United States.

Lawmakers from both major political parties have called for greater transparency regarding investigative documents and individuals associated with the financier.

The Journal's reporting on the alleged birthday album added to the controversy, prompting renewed questions about Trump's historical association with Epstein.

Trump has denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has consistently rejected the claim that he authored the disputed message.

Ruling Marks Setback for Trump's Legal Challenge

The dismissal represents a major setback for Trump's attempt to obtain financial damages from the newspaper over its reporting.

By dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice, the court brought the proceedings at the district court level to a close.

The decision does not prevent Trump from seeking review through the appeals process, but it means he cannot simply submit another version of the same complaint to the district court.

The ruling also underscores the legal protections available to news organizations when investigating powerful public figures.

Under US law, public officials face a higher burden in defamation cases than private individuals because of the constitutional importance of open debate about government and political leadership.

For the Journal, the judgment supports its right to publish investigative findings even when those findings are strongly disputed by the individuals involved.

For Trump, the decision leaves his denial of the alleged birthday letter unchanged but rejects his attempt to establish that the newspaper's reporting constituted actionable defamation.

The case highlights the continuing legal and political debate surrounding Epstein-related disclosures, press freedom and the limits of defamation claims brought by prominent public officials.