The Trump Wall Street Journal lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice after a US federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump failed to establish that the newspaper acted with actual malice in its reporting on his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The decision, delivered on Saturday, October 31, by the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, ends Trump’s second attempt to pursue a defamation case against the publication over its reporting.
Judge Darrin P. Gayles ruled that the president had again failed to meet the legal standard required for public figures bringing defamation claims.
“As with his first attempt, he has failed,” Gayles wrote in his decision.
The judge also praised the newspaper’s investigative process, describing its work as a “thoughtful and detailed investigation”.
He noted that the reporters had made efforts to obtain comments from Trump and other relevant officials before publishing the disputed report.
Gayles rejected arguments contained in Trump’s amended complaint, which attempted to identify alleged shortcomings in the newspaper’s investigation.
“Grasping at straws, the Amended Complaint attempts to manufacture flaws with the investigation,” the judge wrote.
Why the Trump Wall Street Journal lawsuit failed
The central issue in the Trump Wall Street Journal lawsuit was whether the president could demonstrate that the newspaper knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Under US defamation law, public figures face a demanding legal requirement known as the actual malice standard.
To establish actual malice, a claimant must show that a publication knew a statement was false or published it while seriously disregarding whether it was accurate.
Trump’s lawyers argued that the Wall Street Journal should have abandoned its report after the president denied involvement with Epstein.
However, Gayles rejected that position, explaining that a denial from the subject of a news investigation does not automatically require journalists to withdraw their reporting.
“That is not what the actual malice standard requires and runs afoul of the First Amendment,” Gayles wrote.
The judge’s position highlights the legal distinction between a public figure disputing a report and proving that a media organisation deliberately or recklessly published false information.
It also reinforces the protections afforded to journalists under the First Amendment when reporting on matters involving public figures.
Trump had demanded at least $10 billion
Trump had initially filed a defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, seeking at least $10 billion in damages over its reporting on his relationship with Epstein.
After his first legal attempt failed, the president refiled the lawsuit on May 28, 2026, seeking to revive his claims against the newspaper.
The second case again challenged the publication’s reporting, with Trump’s legal team maintaining that the newspaper had acted improperly.
However, Saturday’s dismissal means the Trump Wall Street Journal lawsuit cannot be brought before the same court again.
A dismissal with prejudice is different from one that allows a claimant to correct a complaint and submit it again. It generally brings the particular legal action to a final end.
Consequently, the president’s demand for at least $10 billion in damages will not proceed through this case.
The judge’s decision was based on Trump’s failure to establish the legal requirements for a public figure’s defamation claim.
Epstein reporting remains at the centre of the controversy
The dispute centres on reporting by the Wall Street Journal concerning Trump’s association with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender whose relationships with wealthy and influential individuals have attracted international attention.
Epstein’s connections with prominent personalities have remained a subject of public scrutiny, particularly following criminal investigations into his activities and the allegations surrounding his network.
Trump has challenged reporting concerning his relationship with Epstein, while the newspaper’s investigation became the subject of the defamation proceedings.
In dismissing the case, Gayles drew attention to the journalists’ efforts to seek responses from Trump and other officials before publishing their report.
That detail was important to the court’s consideration of whether the newspaper’s conduct could support Trump’s allegation of actual malice.
The ruling, however, should not be interpreted as a judicial determination of every claim or allegation concerning Trump’s association with Epstein. It addresses the specific legal arguments presented in the defamation case against the newspaper.
A significant legal setback for the US president
The dismissal represents another legal setback for Trump in his dispute with a major American media organisation.
The president has frequently criticised news outlets over their reporting and has pursued legal action against some publications over coverage he considers damaging.
However, US defamation law places a particularly high burden on public figures seeking to establish that a media organisation has defamed them.
Read also: France protests turn violent as police arrest 565 people nationwide
The actual malice requirement is intended to protect freedom of expression and prevent public officials and other prominent individuals from easily using defamation lawsuits to discourage critical reporting.
Gayles concluded that Trump’s amended complaint did not satisfy that requirement.
The judge’s emphasis on the newspaper’s detailed investigation and its efforts to seek comments from relevant individuals further undermined the president’s arguments.
With the case dismissed with prejudice, the Wall Street Journal has secured a decisive outcome in this particular legal dispute.
The Trump Wall Street Journal lawsuit is therefore over in the Southern District of Florida, ending the president’s second attempt to obtain billions of dollars in damages over the newspaper’s Epstein-related reporting.
About The Author
