Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against WSJ Dismissed

A multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit filed by President Trump against The Wall Street Journal has been dismissed. The suit concerned a report linking Mr. Trump to a birthday album for Jeffrey Epstein.

U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami issued a 20-page ruling dismissing the case with prejudice. This means the lawsuit cannot be refiled. Judge Gayles determined that Mr. Trump did not demonstrate that the Journal acted with actual malice.

“The lawsuit was grasping at straws,” Judge Gayles remarked, noting that it attempted to manufacture errors in WSJ’s investigative work.

Actual malice involves proving that a publication knowingly issued false statements or showed a disregard for the truth when reporting on a public figure.

A spokesperson for Mr. Trump’s legal team claimed the President intends to keep challenging the defendants. “President Trump will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants,” the spokesperson stated. They emphasized accountability for misleading the public with false news.

Insiders suggest an appeal is likely. The dispute stemmed from a WSJ story about a sexually suggestive letter, said to have Mr. Trump’s name, included in Epstein’s 2003 birthday book. Mr. Trump labeled the story “FAKE” and subsequently filed a massive $20 billion lawsuit. This targeted the paper, its parent company News Corp, its CEO, reporters involved, and Rupert Murdoch as chairman emeritus.

House lawmakers subpoenaed and received a redacted version of Epstein’s birthday book. This document contained the letter central to Mr. Trump’s case. Then-White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt asserted, “It’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.”

Earlier, in April, Judge Gayles dismissed the initial lawsuit, indicating Mr. Trump’s legal team did not meet the legal standard required to substantiate their claim. The judge stated that Mr. Trump was “nowhere close” to proving the paper acted with actual malice required for defamation involving a public figure. The decision led to a refiling of the lawsuit.