A U.S. federal court has definitively dismissed President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over an article claiming that he had written a suggestive letter to financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sex crimes.
Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that the president’s claims were not supported by sufficient evidence. He also said the case conflicted with the principles of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and of the press.
Të lidhura
None found
Trump had sued the newspaper’s parent company, Dow Jones, as well as its chairman, Rupert Murdoch. The lawsuit concerned an article about a letter that, according to the newspaper, the U.S. president had sent to Epstein in 2003 on the occasion of his 50th birthday.
The president has repeatedly denied writing or signing the document. The letter contained several suggestive phrases and a sketch depicting the outline of a naked woman’s body.
This is the second time Trump’s defamation lawsuit has been dismissed. In its first version, he had sought $20 billion in damages, while after the case was dismissed, his legal team refiled it, reducing the amount sought to $10 billion.
The latest ruling was issued “with final effect,” meaning that the same lawsuit cannot be filed again in this form.
In his 20-page ruling, Judge Gayles praised the newspaper’s investigative process, describing it as “careful and detailed” work. He stressed that Trump’s lawyers had failed to show that the newspaper published information knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the possibility that it was untrue.
Gayles characterized the lawsuit as an attempt to “grasp at every possible thread” and artificially manufacture flaws in the journalists’ work.
Under U.S. law, a public figure bringing a defamation lawsuit must prove that the media acted with “actual malice.” This standard requires showing that the publisher knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Trump’s lawyers argued that The Wall Street Journal should have abandoned publication because the president had denied authorship of the letter when contacted by the newspaper. In their view, the denial should have been sufficient, regardless of the other materials gathered during the investigation.
The judge rejected this reasoning, explaining that the legal standard for defamation does not require journalists to abandon a publication simply because a public figure denies a claim.
In his ruling, he warned that accepting such an interpretation would have consequences for press freedom. Any public figure or representative could automatically block the publication of critical information or information contradicting their statements simply by denying the allegation.
According to the judge, such a conclusion would conflict with the constitutional protection of press freedom in the United States.
The disputed Epstein document
The Wall Street Journal article examined a book prepared for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003, which contained dedications and messages from various people.
The newspaper reported that the letter bearing Donald Trump’s name included several typewritten lines surrounded by the figure of a naked woman. According to the description, the outline appeared to have been drawn with a thick marker.
One of the phrases mentioned in the letter was the ironic expression that “enigmas never age.” The message ended with the words: “A friend is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday – and may each day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump has said that he neither wrote nor signed the letter, claiming that the document is forged. He has also accused the newspaper of publishing it with the intention of damaging his reputation.
The case became public at a time when the Trump administration was facing intense criticism from Democrats and Republicans over its handling of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.
The latest ruling marks an important stage in the legal dispute between the U.S. president and one of the leading media outlets in the United States. It brings renewed attention to the boundary between defamation claims and the constitutional protection afforded to press freedom.
