US judge dismisses Trump's libel lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein letter

Court Ruling

Judge Darrin Gayles of the Southern District of Florida dismissed President Donald J. Trump's amended complaint with prejudice in Trump v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., finding that Trump failed to plausibly allege actual malice in his libel suit over a Wall Street Journal article linking him to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The Legal Standard

In his order, Judge Gayles invoked Justice Brandeis's concurrence in Whitney v. California (1927), quoted in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964):

Those who won our independence believed … that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

The court noted that the First Amendment "prohibits a public [figure] from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood … unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice." This protection is not limited to post-discovery motions and trial: because "[t]he costs and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through [discovery] could chill free speech nearly as effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether," a public figure plaintiff must plausibly allege actual malice at the outset of litigation.

Background: The Article

On July 15, 2025, Wall Street Journal reporter Palazzolo emailed then White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt advising that Dow Jones intended to publish an article about a birthday letter President Trump purportedly created for Epstein (the "Letter").

President Trump and his team responded quickly:

• Leavitt called Palazzolo and told him the "subject matter" of the proposed article was false.
• President Trump, through counsel, denied writing the Letter and warned Dow Jones not to publish.
• President Trump also denied writing the Letter in an interview before publication.
• President Trump directly told Murdoch that he had not signed or sent the Letter. When Murdoch responded that he would "handle it," Trump thought the WSJ would not print the article.

Two days later, the WSJ online edition published the article, titled "Jeffrey Epstein's Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump," with a subtitle reading "[t]he leather-bound book was compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell. The president says the letter 'is a fake thing.'"

Leading with a picture of President Trump with Epstein, the article stated, in pertinent part:

It was Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday, and Ghislaine Maxwell was preparing a special gift to mark the occasion. She turned to Epstein's family and friends. One of them was Donald Trump.

>

Maxwell collected letters from Trump and dozens of Epstein's other associates for a 2003 birthday album, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

>

Pages from the leather-bound album—assembled before Epstein was first arrested in 2006—are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages. It's unclear if any of the pages are part of the Trump Administration's recent review….

>

The letter bearing Trump's name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman's breasts, and the future president's signature is a squiggly "Donald" below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

>

The letter concludes: "Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret."

In an interview with the Journal on Tuesday evening, Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture:

"This is not me. This is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story," he said. "I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women," he said. "It's not my language. It's not my words."

He told the Journal he was preparing to file a lawsuit if it published an article: "I'm gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else."

Justice Department officials didn't respond to requests for comment or address questions about whether the Trump page and other pages of the birthday album were part of the agency's recent documents review. The FBI declined to comment.

Among those who submitted letters were billionaire Leslie Wexner and attorney Alan Dershowitz. Wexner declined to comment through a spokesman. Dershowitz, who represented Epstein after his first arrest, said, "It's been a long time and I don't recall the content of what I may have written."

The book was put together by New York City bookbinder Herbert Weitz, according to people involved in the process. Weitz, who died in 2020, listed Epstein as a client on his website in 2003.

It isn't clear how the letter with Trump's signature was prepared. Inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person.

Additional Context from the Article

When he turned 50, Epstein was already wealthy from managing Wexner's fortune and was socializing with Trump, Clinton and other powerful people. He often entertained at his Manhattan townhouse, Palm Beach home and private Caribbean island.

Epstein and Trump spent time together in the 1990s and early 2000s and were photographed at social events, including with Maxwell and Melania Trump. Trump, along with others including Clinton, also appeared several times on flight logs for Epstein's private jet.

A 2002 New York magazine profile of Epstein quoted Trump:

"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy," Trump said. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Both men said they subsequently had a falling-out. Trump has said their friendship ended before Epstein pleaded guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution in 2008, served time in a Florida jail and registered as a sex offender.

Maxwell, a British socialite, was convicted in 2021 of helping Epstein's sex-trafficking and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Maxwell didn't respond to a letter requesting an interview sent to her in prison. Arthur Aidala, an attorney who represented Maxwell, said, "At this point, she is focused on her case before the Supreme Court of the United States."

The September 8 Article

On September 8, 2025, the WSJ published an article titled "A Visual Breakdown of the Trump Birthday Letter to Epstein," which compares the signature and typeface, drawing style, third-person point of view, and diction in the Letter with prior communications by President Trump. The September 8 article includes President Trump's denial that he wrote the Letter or drew the picture and Leavitt's statement in a social media post that President Trump did not draw the picture in or sign the Letter.

Trump's Claims

President Trump contended that the statements are false because he:

1. Did not author, sign, or draw any portion of the Letter or direct anyone else to author it;
2. Never made or dictated to anyone any of the statements in the voiceover or had any such conversation with Epstein as portrayed in the Letter; and
3. Was not "childhood pals" with Epstein.

The Court's Analysis of Actual Malice

The court concluded that Trump hadn't actually alleged "actual malice"—knowing or reckless falsehood:

Here, the Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice. Indeed, the allegations regarding malice are conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant to whether Defendants knew or should have known that the statements in the Article were purportedly false.

Conclusory Language Is Not Enough

As an initial matter, President Trump's conclusory allegations that Defendants acted with malice because they "knew or should have known" the statements in the Article were false are insufficient to state a claim. See Reed v. Chamblee (11th Cir. 2025) (finding the plaintiff's conclusory assertions that the defendant acted with actual malice insufficient).

Denial Is Not Enough

Though vague, the Amended Complaint appears to allege that by choosing to publish the Article despite President Trump's and his team's denials, Defendants acted with actual malice. In effect, President Trump argued that once he declared the Letter a "fake," Defendants should have disregarded everything else they learned in their investigation and not published the story. But that is not what the actual malice standard requires and runs afoul of the First Amendment. Indeed, were that the law, any time a public figure or his team denies an accusation, journalists would be immediately blocked from publishing negative or contradictory press—a result that flies in the face of the "American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions" (Sullivan).

Moreover, the Article did not ignore or minimize President Trump's denial. Rather, it informed readers that President Trump decried the Letter as a fake and denied writing it. By "allowing readers to decide for themselves what to conclude from the [Article], … any allegation of actual malice [is] less plausible." "[R]eporting perspectives contrary to the publisher's own should be interpreted as helping to rebut, not establish, the presence of actual malice."

The Investigation

President Trump's argument that the WSJ Defendants' investigation was inadequate, and therefore an indication of malice, fared no better. A failure to investigate, without more, does not establish actual malice. Rather, "a plaintiff must show the defendant deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of the statement in order to evade learning the truth." The Amended Complaint came nowhere close to this standard.

Indeed, the Article details a thoughtful and detailed investigation. Before running the story, Defendants:

• Contacted President Trump and his team, who responded with his denial;
• Contacted Justice Department officials, who did not respond at all;
• Contacted the FBI, which declined to comment;
• Attempted to speak with Maxwell, who did not respond to their request and whose attorney stated she was focused on her case before the Supreme Court;
• Reached out to other individuals named in the Birthday Book, including Leslie Wexner and Al [content truncated].

Content truncated in original source.