A federal judge in Florida signaled skepticism on Wednesday over arguments from Donald Trump's legal team in his $10bn defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, suggesting the case may be dismissed for a second time.
US District Court Judge Darrin P Gayles, an Obama appointee, heard arguments in Miami over whether the amended complaint sufficiently pleads actual malice, the legal standard required for a public figure to win a defamation case. The judge had previously dismissed the case in April, giving Trump's attorneys a chance to refile, which they did in May.
Lawsuit stems from July 2025 article about Epstein letter
The lawsuit centers on a July 2025 Journal article headlined "Jeffrey Epstein's Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump." The article reported on a letter reportedly from Trump that was included in a 2003 birthday book for disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Trump has denied authoring or signing the letter, and his attorneys argue the Journal published the story despite being told it was false.
Representing Trump, attorney Alejandro Brito, who also handles the president's $10bn defamation lawsuit against the BBC, argued that the Journal "didn't follow journalistic standards sufficient to making the claims." Brito stated that only four people could attest to the letter's veracity: Trump (who denies it), Epstein (who died by suicide in 2019), the bookbinder (also deceased), and Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell (who says she does not recall who participated in the birthday book project).
Judge questions financial harm
Judge Gayles appeared particularly skeptical that Trump had demonstrated financial harm from the Journal's publication, calling the claims "rather conclusory." Brito responded that Trump's team did not need to specify financial harm and had "done enough at this stage."
Lawyers for Murdoch, the Journal, and parent company News Corp countered that the amended complaint failed to improve on the original. "The amended complaint is no better than the original complaint," said Andrew J Levander, attorney for the defendants. "It is time for this baseless lawsuit to come to an end. You gave the plaintiff a roadmap to fix this case and he couldn't do it."
Defendants cite journalistic standards
The defense argued that Trump's legal team mischaracterized the article and that the Journal could not be expected to withhold publication simply because of the president's denial. Katherine M Bolger, another defense attorney, noted that the Journal included Trump's denials in the article and that reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo were careful to tell readers "what they know and what they don't know."
"That's not actual malice – that's good journalism," Bolger said.
Judge Gayles did not rule from the bench but indicated a decision would come soon. He also agreed to stay discovery in the case. Levander argued that given Trump's history of suing media companies, "if we get into discovery, it will be burdensome on the court and it will be burdensome on the Wall Street Journal."
