Trump Wall Street Journal Lawsuit Dismissed: Why the Judge Found No Actual Malice

What the court decided

The case, President Donald J. Trump v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-23232 in the Southern District of Florida, was brought against Dow Jones (which publishes the Wall Street Journal), its parent News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson and the two journalists who wrote the story, Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo. The First Amended Complaint of 27 May 2026 pleaded defamation per se and defamation per quod, and under each count demanded damages "not to be less than $10 billion dollars".

The claim concerned a July 2025 article reporting that a bawdy letter bearing Mr Trump's name was among the pages of a leather-bound album compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003. Mr Trump denied writing or signing the letter. The order granted the defendants' motion in full and made three directions:

• Dismissal with prejudice. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed and cannot be refiled in amended form.
• Fees reserved. The court keeps jurisdiction to decide attorneys' fees and costs.
• A 30-day window. Any fees motion must be filed within thirty days and must include a choice of law discussion.

The judge did not decide whether the article was true or defamatory. He said those were questions of fact that cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss, and that the failure to plead actual malice was enough to end the case. He also found that the per quod count failed for a second reason: reputational harm is not a "special damage", and the complaint pleaded no realised, out-of-pocket loss.

Why the judge found no actual malice

Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a public figure can recover for a defamatory falsehood only by proving the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Citing Eleventh Circuit authority, the order stresses that this protection applies at the pleading stage: a public figure must plausibly allege actual malice at the outset, because the cost of defending a suit through discovery could itself chill free speech. There was no dispute that Mr Trump is a public figure.

The court rejected each of the four routes the amended complaint used to plead malice:

• The denial. Publishing despite the President's denial was not malice. If it were, the judge wrote, any time a public figure denied an accusation journalists would be blocked from publishing. The article reported the denial, which the court said made malice less plausible, not more.
• The investigation. A failure to investigate does not establish malice on its own; a plaintiff must show deliberate avoidance of the truth. The order describes the Journal's reporting as a "thoughtful and detailed investigation": before publishing it approached the President and his team, the Justice Department and the FBI, tried to reach Ms Maxwell and contacted others named in the album.
• Ghislaine Maxwell. The complaint said the reporters should have checked with Ms Maxwell. The judge called this a "red herring", noting that the complaint itself pleaded that she later told the Justice Department she did not remember Mr Trump submitting a letter, and that her interview took place after publication.
• Omissions and the follow-up article. Editors must choose which facts to include, and a September 2025 article comparing the letter with Mr Trump's earlier signatures and sketches did not show that the Journal knew the first story was false.

The order also found that many allegations still lumped the defendants together, and that the complaint contained no non-conclusory allegation of malice at all against Mr Thomson. Because this was the second failed attempt, dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.

How the case got here

The litigation ran for just over fifteen months. The court docket and the two dismissal orders give the timeline below.

Date	Event
17 July 2025	The Wall Street Journal publishes the article online (in print on 18 July)
18 July 2025	President Trump files suit in Miami for defamation per se and per quod
8 September 2025	A House committee releases the birthday book produced by the Epstein estate; the Journal publishes a visual analysis of the letter
13 April 2026	First complaint dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend
22 May 2026	Request for limited discovery on actual malice before amending is denied
27 May 2026	First Amended Complaint filed
5 August 2026	Hearing on the motion to dismiss; discovery stayed pending the ruling
31 October 2026	Amended complaint dismissed with prejudice; fees reserved

In the April 2026 order, the court gave the President until 27 April to amend and refused the defendants' fees request without prejudice and with leave to renew. The amended pleading, filed after an extension, separated the defendants more carefully but, the court found, still did not cross the plausibility line. The President had no discovery at any stage, which is exactly the outcome the pleading rule is designed to allow. Readers following the President's other litigation will recall the release of the Carroll judgment funds earlier this year.

Fees and the anti-SLAPP question

The defendants asked for their legal costs under the Florida or New York anti-SLAPP statutes. The judge agreed that the defamation claims lack merit but declined to rule on fees, because the parties had not briefed which state's law applies, and that choice may decide the outcome.

Florida Statutes section 768.295 prohibits suits brought "without merit and primarily because" the defendant exercised free speech in connection with a public issue, which expressly includes a news report, and provides that the court "shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs". The order notes that federal courts in Florida have allowed such fee requests to be brought by motion. By contrast, it records that several federal courts have held that New York's statute, section 70-a of the Civil Rights Law, requires the defendant to bring an action or counterclaim, so a bare motion in federal court may fail.

For publishers and companies, the practical point is that the fee fight can matter as much as the merits. Counsel advising a media defendant in a US forum should plead the anti-SLAPP basis early and be ready to argue choice of law. Specialist media and technology lawyers and advisers in Florida will be watching the motion, which is due by 30 November.

How the claim would look in England

The same claim brought in London would be decided on different principles. England has no actual malice rule for public figures. Under the Defamation Act 2013, the claimant must instead show that publication caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation (section 1), and the defendant carries the burden of a defence such as truth (section 2) or publication on a matter of public interest (section 4).

Issue	United States (as applied in this case)	England and Wales
Fault standard for public figures	Claimant must plead and prove actual malice	No actual malice requirement
Threshold	Plausible allegations at the pleading stage	Serious harm to reputation (section 1)
Main media defence	First Amendment protection via the malice rule	Truth (section 2) or public interest (section 4)
Weight of reporting the denial	Makes malice less plausible	A factor in whether belief in the public interest was reasonable
Foreign defendants	Ordinary jurisdiction rules	Court must be satisfied England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place (section 9)

Section 4 asks whether the defendant reasonably believed publication was in the public interest, and requires the court to make allowance for editorial judgement. That echoes Judge Gayles's point that editors must choose which facts to include, but in England the burden sits with the publisher, and the outcome would not turn on pleading the publisher's state of mind. Section 9 adds a jurisdictional filter for defendants not domiciled in the UK. The President's separate $10bn defamation claim against the BBC is also being fought before a Florida court rather than in London. Firms comparing forums can find UK dispute resolution lawyers and advisers in England through our directory.

What happens next

Any appeal would go to the Eleventh Circuit, whose decisions on pleading actual malice the order applies throughout. According to NPR, the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. The BBC reported that the judge found the suit ran counter to the First Amendment. The next filing to watch is the defendants' fees motion.

For in-house and external counsel, three lessons stand out:

1. Report the denial. Publishing the subject's denial prominently was central to the court's finding. Publishers' legal teams should treat it as a core risk control, not a courtesy.
2. Keep a record of outreach. The judge relied on the article itself to show who was contacted before publication. A documented pre-publication process is evidence in its own right.
3. Weigh the forum before suing. A public figure suing in the US must plead facts about the publisher's state of mind without discovery. Corporate claimants considering a libel claim should compare that hurdle with English law, and with the costs exposure of an anti-SLAPP statute. Our guide to arbitration and litigation and the US litigation directory are a starting point.

With the Trump Wall Street Journal lawsuit dismissed, the case joins the other litigation involving the President that we have covered, from Trump v CASA onwards. More coverage is in our dispute resolution news.

Frequently asked questions

Why was the Trump Wall Street Journal lawsuit dismissed?

Judge Darrin Gayles held that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege actual malice, meaning that the Journal knew the article was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. Publishing over Mr Trump's denial, the scope of the investigation and alleged omissions were all found insufficient.

What does dismissed with prejudice mean?

It means the claim is finally dismissed and cannot be refiled in amended form in that court. The judge chose this outcome because it was the President's second failed attempt, after the first complaint was dismissed without prejudice in April 2026.

Who were the defendants?

Dow Jones & Company, publisher of the Wall Street Journal; its parent News Corporation; Rupert Murdoch; News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson; and reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo, who wrote the July 2025 article about the Epstein birthday album.

How much did Trump claim?

The First Amended Complaint demanded damages "not to be less than $10 billion dollars" under each of its two counts, defamation per se and defamation per quod, together with punitive damages and costs.

Will Dow Jones recover its legal fees?

Not yet decided. The court reserved jurisdiction and gave the defendants thirty days to file a fees motion that addresses whether Florida's or New York's anti-SLAPP law applies. Florida's statute says the court shall award a prevailing party reasonable fees.

Would the claim have succeeded in England?

No one can say, but the test would differ. English law has no actual malice rule; the claimant must show serious harm, and the publisher must prove a defence such as truth or public interest under the Defamation Act 2013.

Sources

1. Order granting Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, Trump v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-23232 (S.D. Fla., 31 October 2026), ECF No. 80: CourtListener
2. Order on Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (S.D. Fla., 13 April 2026), ECF No. 59: CourtListener
3. First Amended Complaint (S.D. Fla., 27 May 2026), ECF No. 67: CourtListener
4. Docket, No. 1:25-cv-23232 (S.D. Fla.): CourtListener
5. NPR, 1 November 2026: npr.org
6. BBC News, 1 November 2026: bbc.com
7. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964): Legal Information Institute
8. Florida Statutes, section 768.295: Florida Legislature
9. Defamation Act 2013: legislation.gov.uk

About this article

Researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom from the court's orders, the pleadings, the statutes cited and contemporaneous reporting. It is general information, not legal advice. Last reviewed 2 November 2026. For more analysis visit our newsroom or subscribe to our newsletter.