Federal Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the Southern District of Florida dismissed Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media executive Rupert Murdoch on Saturday with prejudice, ending the legal battle over a Wall Street Journal story reporting that Trump sent a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump filed the suit in response to a Wall Street Journal article reporting that he had sent a birthday letter to Epstein as part of a birthday book. Judge Gayles, who presides over the case in Miami, dismissed it on October 31, 2026, the second rejection of Trump’s claim. The lawsuit was originally dismissed on April 13, 2026 by the same judge. Trump filed an amended version to revive the defamation claim, but Judge Gayles dismissed it again with prejudice, a legal ruling that prevents the claim from being refiled.
Dismissal with prejudice is final. It blocks Trump from bringing the same defamation claim again in court. The ruling reflects established First Amendment doctrine: public figures face a high bar in defamation suits. Courts balance press freedom against personal reputation claims, regularly dismissing cases brought by politicians and public figures when reporting touches on matters of public concern.
From April to October
The legal battle spanned six months from April to October 2026. Judge Gayles first dismissed the case in April but gave Trump the option to amend and refile his complaint. Trump submitted a revised version in hopes of addressing the judge’s initial concerns. In his October 31 ruling, Judge Gayles said Trump was “grasping at straws,” according to reporting from the Associated Press and Agence France-Presse. The Trump v. Murdoch court docket contains the full record.
The Wall Street Journal story reported that Trump had included a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein in a birthday book, a matter that became central to Trump’s defamation claims. Defamation law sets a high bar for public figures, requiring them to prove statements were false and made with actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. Press freedom protections under the First Amendment make such cases difficult for public figures to win in court.
With the dismissal with prejudice, Trump’s legal options in this case are exhausted. The ruling returns the focus to the underlying facts of the Wall Street Journal article and the birthday book that Trump disputes. Federal courts have consistently applied strict standards to defamation suits brought by public figures, and this dismissal follows that long-established pattern.
