Trump’s $10 Billion Lawsuit Against the WSJ Is Dead for Good. Here’s Why It Matters Online.

Defamation, Press Freedom, Wall Street Journal, Media Law, Trump, Publishing

Big Dez
3 Min Read
Screenshot

A $10 billion lawsuit. Two dismissals. Zero trials.

On Saturday, October 31, a federal judge ended Trump’s defamation case against the Wall Street Journal for good. The ruling matters well beyond one newspaper, because it touches anyone who publishes online.

What Happened

US District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami dismissed the suit, which also named Rupert Murdoch, “with prejudice,” meaning it cannot be filed again. It was the second time a federal judge threw the case out.

The dispute centers on a July 2025 report. The Journal described a birthday book that Ghislaine Maxwell compiled for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. The report said it contained a bawdy letter bearing Trump’s name.

The Two Words That Decided It

The ruling hinged on a legal standard called actual malice. Public figures must show a publisher made a defamatory statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard for whether it was.

The judge found Trump did not plausibly allege that each defendant acted with actual malice. He also said Trump’s team was grasping at straws while trying to manufacture flaws in the original report.

Quick Poll: Be Honest

Before this story, had you heard of “actual malice”? Most people haven’t, yet it’s the rule that shapes what news outlets, bloggers and newsletter writers can safely publish about public figures.

Trump’s Side

Trump has consistently denied writing the letter. He and the White House have said the document is fake. His lawyer, Alejandro Brito, argued in court that the Journal didn’t meet journalistic standards.

After the ruling, his legal team said he would continue pressing forward with the case against the Journal and the other defendants. Other coverage reports a plan to appeal. Trump could take a loss all the way to the Supreme Court, which can stretch a case over years.

The Journal’s Side

The newspaper argued the suit was meritless and a threat to speech. Its lawyers said such lawsuits chill those who publish content the President dislikes. A Dow Jones spokesperson said the company was pleased with the decision.

Share This Article
Leave a Comment