Judge permanently bars Trump from suing Journal over Epstein letter claim

A federal judge in Miami has permanently dismissed Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media executive Rupert Murdoch. The ruling, issued on Saturday by U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, concludes the legal battle over a story detailing Trump's connection to Jeffrey Epstein.

The court threw out the case with prejudice, a legal term that prevents the plaintiff from refiling the same claims in the future. Gayles determined that Trump did not demonstrate that the defendants published defamatory statements with actual malice. The judge noted that the lawsuit attempted to manufacture flaws in the newspaper's investigative work rather than proving the specific legal standard required for public figures to win libel cases.

The dispute centers on a Wall Street Journal article published last year. The report described a sexually suggestive letter and drawing that the paper identified as bearing Trump's name. These items were part of an album compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. The letter, collected by Ghislaine Maxwell, features text framed by an outline of a naked woman. It closes with the line, "Happy Birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret."

Trump has consistently denied authorship of the letter. He characterized the newspaper's reporting as false, malicious, and defamatory. His legal team argued that the Journal and its reporters knowingly and recklessly published numerous false statements that caused overwhelming financial and reputational harm to the president.

This is the second time the suit has been thrown out. Judge Gayles initially dismissed the case in April, finding that Trump failed to argue that the article was published with malicious intent. The judge allowed the president to file an amended complaint, which Trump's team did in May. In the final ruling, Gayles cited the 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That precedent requires public figures to prove that a media outlet knowingly published false information or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

The judge found the amended complaint lacking in specific details regarding malice. Gayles wrote that the allegations were conclusory, vague, and sometimes inconsistent with the article itself. The ruling also pointed out that the Journal did not ignore Trump's denial of the letter. Instead, the story informed readers that the president decried the letter as a fake and denied writing it.

The White House did not immediately react to the dismissal on Saturday or respond to requests for comment. The outcome follows a pattern of legal conflicts between the administration and various news organizations. Trump is currently involved in separate lawsuits with the BBC, The Associated Press, and CNN. He also recently clashed with MS NOW and Politico after banning them from the White House in mid-September.