Trump refiles $10 billion defamation suit against Wall Street Journal

President Donald Trump on Wednesday refiled a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a July 2025 article linking him to Jeffrey Epstein, naming Rupert Murdoch and other top News Corp executives as defendants after a judge threw out the original complaint in April.

"The original filing fell far short of the actual-malice standard required for public figures to prevail in defamation cases," U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles wrote in his April dismissal order, noting the Journal had sought comment from Trump before publication.

The revised complaint, filed in Florida federal court, argues the newspaper acted with "reckless disregard for the truth" by publishing a story claiming Trump signed a lewd birthday card to Epstein in 2003. Trump has repeatedly called the card a forgery. The new suit adds Murdoch, News Corp Chief Executive Robert Thomson, Dow Jones and two reporters as defendants, expanding the scope beyond the original filing.

The case tests how far courts will go in policing media reporting on public figures, with potential implications for press freedom and defamation liability standards. The Wall Street Journal has said it stands by its reporting and plans to fight the suit. A trial, if the case survives dismissal, remains years away.

The Birthday Card at the Center of the Case

The dispute centers on a 2003 birthday card the Journal reported Trump sent to Epstein, the convicted sex trafficker who died in federal custody in 2019. The card featured a nude female sketch with printed text reading: "Happy Birthday — May every day be a beautiful secret." Trump's signature appeared below the message.

The Journal's July 2025 article cited the card as evidence of a closer relationship between Trump and Epstein than the former president has acknowledged. Trump has denied any close ties to Epstein and called the card a fabrication.

Why the First Lawsuit Failed

Judge Gayles dismissed the original complaint in April, ruling it "fell far short" of the actual-malice standard established by the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan. That precedent requires public figures to prove a publisher knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The judge noted the Journal had contacted Trump's representatives for comment before publication and that the article did not exhibit "a reckless disregard for the truth." The court also declined to rule on whether the card was authentic, saying that question was not before it.

What the Revised Complaint Changes

Trump's attorney Alejandro Brito wrote in the new filing that the defendants "published the defamatory statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, and/or deliberately avoided discovering the truth." The complaint points to what it calls "glaring omissions" in the Journal's reporting — including the newspaper's failure to explain who printed the card, why it was written in the third person, and how the publication obtained the original document.

The suit also notes the Journal did not publish an image of the card alongside its article and took months to respond to Trump's initial objections, which the complaint argues constitutes further evidence of actual malice.

News Corp had not responded to a request for comment as of Wednesday evening.

What's at Stake for Media and Markets

The lawsuit carries financial and legal risks for News Corp, which owns the Journal and Dow Jones. A $10 billion judgment — even a fraction of that amount — would represent a significant liability for the media conglomerate, which reported $10.4 billion in revenue in its most recent fiscal year. Beyond the dollar figure, the case could influence how aggressively news organizations report on public figures, particularly those with the resources to pursue protracted litigation.

The case also adds to Trump's pattern of using defamation lawsuits against media outlets he accuses of bias. He has previously sued CNN, The New York Times and ABC News, with mixed results. Most such suits have been dismissed or settled without admission of liability.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.