Judge dismisses Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against WSJ for letter to Epstein
Federal judge in Miami found that Trump did not demonstrate actual intent and closed the case without the possibility of further prosecution.
BY THE X-TRADER NEWS NEWSROOM · REPORTING FROM INFOMONEY · 2 MIN
Federal judge Darrin Gayles, from Miami, rejected on Saturday, 31, the lawsuit in which Trump asked for US$10 billion from The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and Rupert Murdoch. According to InfoMoney, the decision definitively extinguished the process, and the complaint cannot be filed again.
The defamation action asked for around R$57 billion, according to Exame. The target was a report published by the WSJ in July 2025 about Trump's connections with Jeffrey Epstein, a financier accused of sexual crimes. The most sensitive point was a letter allegedly sent by Trump to Epstein in 2003, which, according to Times Brasil, was a 50th birthday card.
The basis for rejection was the lack of actual intent, the so-called current malice, a requirement of United States defamation law. According to InfoMoney, the judge considered that Trump did not demonstrate this element, a necessary condition for an action of this type to prosper.
In a 20-page decision, Gayles stated that Trump, once again, did not present plausible arguments of real intent, according to Times Brasil. The judge also said that the amended complaint attempted to fabricate flaws in the newspaper's investigation and that Trump was clinging to any argument.
Investing.com recorded the rejection 'with prejudice', a term that, in practice, prevents another attempt with the same complaint. Times Brasil reported that the process was closed with a resolution on the merits.
The case brings together two themes that usually mobilize public debate: journalistic coverage of public figures and Epstein's connections with powerful personalities.
What changes for the investor
For those who invest, the most direct effect is the elimination of a billion-dollar legal threat against the newspaper and Rupert Murdoch, as the action will not be able to return. As the decision does not contain financial data, there is no basis for the facts found to project a price reaction. What is worth monitoring is whether this understanding of actual intent is repeated in other disputes between public figures and the press, because this influences the legal risk that the media sector carries.
Automatically translated from Portuguese.
