Trump’s $10 Billion WSJ Suit Is Dismissed. That Is a Ruling, Not a Letter Verdict.

President Donald Trump’s second attempt to sue The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on an alleged birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein has been dismissed with prejudice. U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles signed the order in Miami on October 31, 2026. The amended complaint failed to adequately allege actual malice, the court concluded.

That is a consequential loss in a $10 billion defamation case. It is also a decision with a particular legal scope. The internet does not get to turn it into a handwriting verdict, a criminal conviction or an answer to every question about Epstein.

What the order actually does

The 20-page order, docket entry 80, grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Dismissal with prejudice prevents another amended version of the same claim in this action. It does not mean that appellate review is impossible.

Gayles had dismissed the earlier complaint in April while allowing amendment. This time, the court found the additional allegations insufficient. The judge also retained jurisdiction over fees and costs and allowed a fee motion within 30 days. That permission is not an award of fees; the court said the applicable law and entitlement still needed briefing.

The disputed article and Trump’s denial

The Journal reported that a letter bearing Trump’s name appeared in a birthday album assembled for Epstein in 2003. Trump denied writing it and challenged the reporting as defamatory. His denial remains part of the record and should remain part of any accurate account of the dispute.

The Associated Press reported October 31 that the lawsuit sought $10 billion and that the judge found the pleading inadequate under the actual-malice standard. In the order itself, Gayles considered the reporters’ investigation and their efforts to obtain responses, including the denial carried in the published story.

Actual malice has a legal meaning: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for whether a statement was false. It does not simply mean that a public figure dislikes an article or believes a reporter was hostile. The ruling addresses what the amended complaint plausibly alleged under that standard.

DJF analysis: keep the receipt attached to the headline

A president’s attempt to make a newsroom pay billions is a public-accountability story. So is a court’s explanation for rejecting it. The useful response is to read the explanation, distinguish the dismissed claims from unresolved questions and resist inventing a larger verdict because it makes a punchier post.

The same care belongs in Epstein coverage generally. An appearance in a record, a disputed document and a judicial ruling each establish different things. None should become a shortcut to alleging unrelated wrongdoing. Our separate Epstein-records appeal coverage concerns disclosure litigation, not this defamation case.

The next developments to watch are any appeal and the fee proceedings expressly left open. For now, the documented result is clear: the amended lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, and the court has explained why. That is substantial enough without ordering a side of invented certainty.

Photograph credit

Daniel Torok’s January 2025 portrait, identification and public-domain dedication. Historical headshot crop resized for display; it does not depict this ruling.

Editorial note: This article draws on the linked sources and may include clearly labeled opinion or unconfirmed reports. We have not independently verified every source claim. Publication does not establish an unconfirmed claim as fact; developing details may change.