Trump’s Defamation Case on Epstein Letter Falls Short, Potentially Costing Him

A federal judge has dismissed Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its journalists. The lawsuit accused the publication of fabricating a story about Trump signing a controversial birthday letter for Jeffrey Epstein two decades ago. However, the claim couldn’t prove that Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper invented the story.

Although the lawsuit was dismissed, Trump received a slight reprieve. U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, appointed by Barack Obama, dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing Trump a two-week window to refile. This means the judge did not address the Journal’s request for Trump to cover legal fees and other costs associated with what they termed a SLAPP suit—Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation—deemed “without merit.” The judge left open the possibility for Trump to reinvigorate the case with stronger evidence.

This legal development follows shortly after First Lady Melania Trump made headlines with a public statement from the White House, where she firmly refuted any past friendship with Epstein or his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is facing charges related to sex trafficking.

The judge highlighted that Trump’s complaint fell significantly short of the “actual malice” standard required for public figures to claim defamation. Judge Gayles pointed out Trump’s assertions that the Journal had “serious doubts” about the story’s accuracy but still published it, allegedly bypassing an investigation to verify the letter’s existence.

One critical flaw in Trump’s case, as noted by the judge, was his oversight in not thoroughly examining the article before filing the lawsuit in July.

Indeed, the article addressed attempts to investigate, Gayles noted.

“The Complaint also alleges that President Trump told Defendants that the Letter was a fake before they ran the Article. President Trump argues that this allegation shows that Defendants acted with serious doubts about the truth of their reporting and, therefore, with actual malice. The Court disagrees. To establish actual malice, ‘a plaintiff must show the defendant deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of the statement in order to evade learning the truth.’ The Complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite. The Article explains that, before running the story, Defendants contacted President Trump, Justice Department officials, and the FBI for comment,” the judge said. “President Trump responded with his denial, the Justice Department did not respond at all, and the FBI declined to comment. In short, the Complaint and Article confirm that Defendants attempted to investigate. The Article also states that the WSJ reviewed the Letter. Accordingly, President Trump’s conclusory allegation that Defendants had contradictory evidence and failed to investigate is rebutted by the Article and is insufficient to establish actual malice.”

In a footnote, Gayles added that Trump had not “alleged any facts, beyond conclusory allegations, that support an inference that Defendants purposefully avoided the truth.”

In July, the newspaper reported that the “bawdy” letter included a drawing of a “sketch” of a naked woman’s body with “Donald” signed “below her waist” seemingly “mimicking pubic hair.” The letter also contained a “typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person,” which included the line: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Trump threatened to sue the WSJ prior to the article’s publication, then immediately sued the next day in federal court, claiming that “no authentic letter or drawing exist[ed].” After Congress released Epstein estate documents in September, including the Epstein birthday book, the White House shifted to say Trump did not sign the letter or draw it.

Defending the article as “true,” the Journal answered that its report made no claim that Trump wrote the letter but merely stated a letter existed which “bore President Trump’s name and signature” and that the letter was included among many other submissions for Epstein’s 50th birthday book. In addition, the newspaper said, the report noted the president denied he authored the letter.

As of Monday, Gayles has not decided if the letter the Journal reported on and the one subsequently handed to Congress are the same.

“President Trump disputes their authenticity. The Court cannot make a factual finding, at this time, that the documents produced by the Epstein Estate are the same documents referenced in the Article. Moreover, President Trump disputes that he wrote or signed the Produced Letter. Based on these factual disputes, the Court denies Defendants’ request to incorporate by reference the Birthday Book and Produced Letter,” he said.