US District Judge Darrin Gayles permanently dismissed the $10 billion defamation suit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal after finding no evidence of reckless disregard for the truth. The disputed July 17, 2025, article detailed a sexually suggestive birthday note featuring a hand-drawn outline of a woman and Donald Trump's signature, which Trump denied creating. Although the legal team amended the complaint in May to challenge the verification process following an April dismissal, the court concluded the filing merely presented vague allegations that attempted to manufacture reporting flaws.
Key points
The court determined the lawsuit failed to meet the legal standard of actual malice neces…: The court determined the lawsuit failed to meet the legal standard of actual malice necessary to prove defamation.
Judge Gayles characterized the plaintiff's amended arguments as vague and an effort to ma…: Judge Gayles characterized the plaintiff's amended arguments as vague and an effort to manufacture flaws in the news investigation.
Trump maintained that he never authored the note, the hand-drawn outline, or the signatur…: Trump maintained that he never authored the note, the hand-drawn outline, or the signature referenced in the reporting.
Sources checked by our analysis pipeline: 1
Judge permanently drops Trump’s $10bn WSJ lawsuit, ruling he failed to prove actual malice in the newspaper’s reporting.
A federal judge has permanently dismissed United States President Donald Trump’s multibillion-dollar defamation lawsuit against media mogul Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal newspaper.
On Saturday, US District Judge Darrin Gayles concluded that the president had failed to establish the standard of “actual malice” that is required for defamation suits.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 items- list 1 of 3Trump ‘spent hours’ with victim at Epstein’s house, emails allege
- list 2 of 3Trump administration subpoenas New York Times reporters over coverage
- list 3 of 3US judge dismisses Trump’s $10bn lawsuit against WSJ over Epstein story
Under US law, a successful complaint must show that the defendant released a defamatory statement knowing it was false or with “reckless disregard” for its accuracy.
Gayles, however, said that Trump was “grasping at straws” with his $10bn case against The Wall Street Journal.
“The Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice,” Gayles wrote.
“Indeed, the allegations regarding malice are conclusory, vague, sometimes…
Speaking during an event in Florida, Donald Trump expressed skepticism regarding Tehran's historical commitment to diplomatic pacts despite ongoing discussions. Washington is intentionally maintaining a patient approach while mediator Qatar facilitates the dialogue between the two nations. However, the prospect of military escalation remains immediate, with U.S. warnings explicitly directed at sensitive Iranian infrastructure.
The legal defeat permanently blocks Donald Trump from reviving his ten-billion-dollar claim against Rupert Murdoch and the newspaper after he repeatedly failed to prove actual malice. The disputed reporting focused on an alleged 2003 birthday message sent to Jeffrey Epstein that featured a crude illustration and references to shared secrets. The ruling arrives amid intense political fallout as rival campaigns heavily finance political advertisements surrounding the controversies ahead of upcoming elections.
Major national publications have focused their weekend reporting on political tensions between the prime minister and the monarch, alongside entertainment and celebrity developments. The press review also examines recent revelations from popular television programming alongside social gossip. These collective stories reflect a blend of constitutional drama and light entertainment dominating current domestic interest.