Florida Judge Throws Out Trump's Defamation Suit Against Wall Street Journal, Sets 2‑Week Refiling Window

A federal judge in Miami has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and News Corp, granting the former president a two‑week deadline to refile the case.

Trump’s suit, filed last summer, alleged that a lewd drawing featured in a July 2025 article—purportedly a “bawdy” birthday letter to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein—was fabricated, and that the newspaper published it with actual malice. The complaint also named media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp owns the Journal, as a defendant.

Judge Darrin P. Gayles ruled that the complaint “fails to adequately allege actual malice,” the legal standard required for defamation actions by public figures. He noted that the Journal had conducted a “significant” inquiry into the authenticity of the drawing and that Trump’s assertion of falsity alone does not prove the newspaper acted with “serious doubts” about the story’s truth.

In his opinion, the judge wrote: “Because President Trump has not plausibly alleged that defendants published the article with actual malice, both counts must be dismissed.” He also observed that Trump’s team had not presented evidence of special damages.

Under the order, Trump may refile the lawsuit by April 27 with additional proof that the Journal knowingly published false material. A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team confirmed they will pursue a revised filing, emphasizing the administration’s intent to “hold accountable those who traffic in fake news.”

The Wall Street Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones, welcomed the decision. A Dow Jones representative said, “We stand behind the reliability, rigor and accuracy of The Wall Street Journal’s reporting.”

The dismissal underscores the stringent “actual malice” requirement for defamation suits involving public officials, a threshold that continues to shape media‑law battles in the United States. It also leaves Trump with ongoing litigation against the BBC and other media outlets over separate First Amendment disputes.