A federal judge in Florida has dismissed a revised defamation lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump against The Wall Street Journal. The lawsuit, which sought $10 billion in damages, arose from a story discussing a birthday card allegedly sent by Trump to Jeffrey Epstein more than 20 years ago.
U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that Trump’s amended complaint exhibited the same critical issue as his original lawsuit, stating it did not meet the stringent legal standard of proving that the newspaper published the story with “actual malice.”
“As President Trump has not plausibly alleged that each Defendant made defamatory statements with actual malice, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed. And because this is President Trump’s second attempt to allege his claims, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate,” the judge wrote.
Trump’s initial lawsuit was filed last July soon after The Wall Street Journal reported on a birthday book Ghislaine Maxwell had compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. This book reportedly featured a note from Trump, along with a hand-drawn image that raised significant public interest.
The note included a depiction of a woman and what appeared to be Trump’s name inscribed in a controversial context. Trump rejected any connection to this card, asserting that it was fabricated and did not exist.
Rick Friedman / Corbis via Getty Images file
Subsequently, Epstein’s estate provided a card that corresponded to the newspaper’s description, although Trump and his representatives continue to assert it was a fabrication.
In the lawsuit, Trump claimed that the article “falsely represents as fact that President Trump drew the naked woman’s breasts and signed his name ‘Donald’ below her waist.” He argued that these statements inflicted significant financial and reputational damage on him.
Moreover, Trump criticized the Journal for not including an image of the card in the original article, claiming it indicated that no authentic document existed, despite the fact that the card had been subsequently released by the House Oversight Committee as part of the investigations into Epstein.
In their defense, the Journal’s attorneys maintained that Trump’s claims failed to demonstrate “actual malice.” They emphasized that the article disclosed Trump’s denial about the card’s authenticity, indicating a fair and thorough investigation had taken place.
The legal team further argued that the act of sending a humorously explicit birthday card does not constitute defamatory speech. The Journal’s position reiterated that the piece made it clear that Trump’s previous friendship with Epstein occurred well before Epstein’s criminal allegations came to light.
Trump’s suit also noted that Epstein’s estate facilitated the release of the card, asserting that this fact confirmed the truthfulness of the story. Testimony from Maxwell in a prior interview stated she acknowledged creating the birthday book but lacked specific memories regarding Trump’s contribution to it.
The White House continues to assert that the signature on the card does not correspond to Trump’s known signature, although Democrats have pointed out similarities to signatures where Trump wrote only his first name.
