US Federal Judge Dismisses Donald Trump's $10 Billion Defamation Suit Against Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch

Former President Donald Trump’s high‑profile defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch was dismissed by a federal judge on Saturday, 31 October 2026. The case, filed in the United States District Court, sought $10 billion in damages after the newspaper published a story in July 2025 alleging that Trump had sent a 2003 birthday letter to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that included a sketch of a naked woman. The judge ruled that Trump had not demonstrated that the defendants acted with actual malice, a legal requirement for public‑figure defamation claims, and barred any attempt to refile the suit.

The decision was reported by multiple outlets, including Channels TV, NPR, The Hindu, Times of Israel and CNA World. All sources confirm the core facts: the lawsuit centred on the July 2025 Wall Street Journal report, the claimed $10 billion damages, and the judge’s finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the malice standard. The ruling effectively ends Trump’s legal challenge to the newspaper’s coverage of his alleged connection to Epstein.

Background

The controversy began when The Wall Street Journal released a story in July 2025 detailing a letter that Trump allegedly wrote to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The letter, described as a birthday greeting, reportedly featured a drawing of a naked woman, prompting accusations that Trump had engaged in inappropriate conduct with the convicted sex offender. Trump denied any wrongdoing and asserted that the story was part of a broader campaign to tarnish his reputation.

In response, Trump filed a defamation lawsuit in early 2026, seeking $10 billion in damages from the newspaper and its parent company, News Corp., founded by media magnate Rupert Murdoch. The suit alleged that the publication’s claims were false and that the defendants acted with actual malice, a heightened standard required for public‑figure plaintiffs under U.S. defamation law.

The case attracted significant political attention. Democrats and some Republicans criticised Trump’s attempt to silence the press, while his supporters framed the lawsuit as a defence against a media “hoax”. The legal battle unfolded against the backdrop of ongoing investigations into Trump’s financial and personal dealings, though he has not been charged with any criminal offence related to Epstein.

Why it matters

The dismissal has immediate implications for both the former president and the media landscape. For Trump, the ruling removes a costly legal hurdle and eliminates the prospect of a $10 billion judgment that could have further strained his finances and political standing. It also underscores the difficulty public figures face in proving actual malice in defamation cases, reinforcing protections for journalistic reporting on matters of public interest.

For the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, the decision validates the newspaper’s reporting and shields it from a potentially crippling financial award. Media organisations often cite the case as an example of the legal risks associated with investigative reporting on powerful individuals. The judge’s statement that Trump was “grasping at straws” was echoed across several outlets, highlighting the judiciary’s view that the lawsuit lacked substantive legal merit.

The broader public interest lies in the continued scrutiny of Trump’s historical ties to Jeffrey Epstein. While the defamation suit is now closed, the underlying allegations remain part of the public record and may influence public perception and future investigations.

What happens next

The judge’s order explicitly bars Trump from refiling the same defamation claim, effectively closing the case. No further appeals or motions were reported in the sources. As a result, the parties are expected to move on from the litigation, with the Wall Street Journal likely to continue its coverage of related topics without the looming threat of a massive damages award.

The dismissal may also influence how future defamation actions involving public figures are approached, particularly regarding the requirement to prove actual malice. Legal analysts, however, were not quoted in the available sources, so any broader judicial commentary remains unrecorded.

Overall, the ruling marks the end of a high‑stakes legal confrontation between a former U.S. president and a major news organisation, reinforcing established defamation standards while leaving the underlying Epstein‑related allegations unresolved in the public sphere.