The Wall Street Journal is asking a federal judge to shut down Donald Trump’s Epstein defamation case “once and for all” and even force him to pay its legal bills.
Story Snapshot
- The Wall Street Journal filed a harsh new motion calling Trump’s revised $10 billion lawsuit “groundless” and “baseless.”[1][3]
- Trump says a Journal article about a “bawdy” birthday note in Jeffrey Epstein’s book falsely tied him to Epstein and harmed his name.[3][4]
- A judge already threw out Trump’s first lawsuit for not showing “actual malice,” but allowed him to refile with new claims.[1][3]
- The Journal now argues the article is true, not defamatory, and that Trump still cannot meet the high bar for a public‑figure defamation claim.[1][2][3]
How Trump’s Epstein Defamation Fight Reached This Point
Donald Trump first sued the Wall Street Journal and its parent, Dow Jones, for $10 billion over a story about a “bawdy” birthday note allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his fiftieth birthday.[3][4] The article described a letter and sketch in Epstein’s “birthday book” and reported that it bore Trump’s name and matched examples of his signature.[1][2][4] Trump argued the letter was fake, said the article falsely tied him to Epstein, and claimed it damaged his reputation.[3][4]
In April, United States District Judge Darrin Gayles, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, dismissed Trump’s first complaint.[1][3] The judge ruled that Trump had not plausibly alleged “actual malice,” which public figures must prove in defamation cases under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard.[1][3] The court said nothing in the story showed the Journal knew its reporting was false or ignored the truth, and it rejected Trump’s effort to start discovery into the paper’s newsgathering.[1][3]
Why The Wall Street Journal Says Trump’s New Complaint Still Fails
After that setback, Trump refiled a revised defamation lawsuit, again seeking $10 billion and again arguing that the Epstein birthday article was false and malicious.[3][4] On June 10, the Wall Street Journal responded in a blistering motion to dismiss, telling the Miami federal court that the new complaint “does not remedy any of the defects” the judge already found.[1][3] The filing says Trump’s case “remains groundless” and should now be dismissed with prejudice, meaning no more chances to replead.[1][3]
The Journal lays out three main reasons it says Trump’s new case cannot stand.[1] First, it argues Trump still does not plausibly show “actual malice,” because his lawyers point to no facts that reporters knew anything was false or had serious doubts.[1] Second, it claims the article is not defamatory on its face, since describing a crude note to a friend is not the same as accusing Trump of crimes.[1][3] Third, it says the reporting “was proven true” when the House Oversight Committee later released documents showing a letter identical to the one in the article.[1][2]
Signatures, Friendships, and the Tough Road for Public Figures
The motion also pushes back hard on Trump’s attacks on the Journal’s methods.[1] Trump’s team had claimed the paper failed to properly examine the signature and hid key facts about his statements on Epstein.[1][4] The Journal answers that its reporters compared the “Donald” signature in the birthday book to other times Trump signed only his first name, not his full signature, and that Trump’s lawyers misrepresented this in their filings.[1] The motion also notes that other public reporting has long described Trump and Epstein as former friends.[1]
🔴 Trump re-files defamation suit against Wall Street Journal after dismissal
Trump sued the Wall Street Journal last July over a story about a birthday card with a lewd drawing sent to Jeffrey Epstein. A court dismissed the suit in April, finding Trump failed to meet the… pic.twitter.com/TiSiysUS1f
— NewsTongue (@NewsTongueX) June 6, 2026
This case shows how hard it is for public figures to win defamation suits against major news outlets. Under Supreme Court precedent, Trump must prove not only that the story was false and harmful, but also that the Journal acted with “actual malice” — that it knew the reporting was false or recklessly ignored clear doubts.[1] The earlier dismissal, and this new motion, both lean on that high bar as a shield for investigative reporting, even when it paints powerful people in an unflattering light.[1][3]
Sources:
[1] Web – WSJ Files Scathing Motion Against Trump in Epstein Lawsuit, Calls His …
[2] Web – News Wrap: Judge dismisses Trump’s lawsuit against WSJ for … – PBS
[3] Web – WSJ Says Trump Libel Suit Should Be Dismissed ‘Once and For All’
[4] Web – Judge dismisses Trump’s $10B lawsuit against WSJ, Murdoch over …
