Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal Without Prejudice
The judge said Trump did not meet the “actual malice” standard.
U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles of the Southern District of Florida dismissed President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal without prejudice.
Without prejudice means Trump can amend the lawsuit and revive it later.
Trump sued WSJ in July for $10 billion over an alleged birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump filed the lawsuit against Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, Robert Thomson, and two Wall Street Journal reporters, Joseph Palazzolo and Khadeeja Safdar.
Trump claimed the letter is fake, that the WSJ published the story to defame him, and that the publication “knew or should have known that the allegedly defamatory statements were false.” From Trump’s lawsuit:
On the one hand, Defendants Safdar and Palazzolo falsely pass off as fact that President Trump, in 2003, wrote, drew, and signed this letter. And on the other hand, Defendants Safdar and Palazzolo failed to attach the letter, failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained. The reason for those failures is because no authentic letter or drawing exists. Defendants concocted this story to malign President Trump’s character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.
Remember, public figures have a harder time with defamatory lawsuits because they must prove actual malice: “to plead actual malice, [President Trump] must allege facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that the false statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Gayles said Trump did not meet the standard:
To establish actual malice, “a plaintiff must show the defendant deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of the statement in order to evade learning the truth.” Reed, 2025 WL 1874638, at *3. The Complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite. The Article explains that, before running the story, Defendants contacted President Trump, Justice Department officials, and the FBI for comment. President Trump responded with his denial, the Justice Department did not respond at all, and the FBI declined to comment. In short, the Complaint and Article confirm that Defendants attempted to investigate. The Article also states that the WSJ reviewed the Letter.
Since the lawsuit is Trump’s first attempt at the claims, Gayles dismissed it without prejudice.
Gayles dismissed the Defendants’ request for attorney fees and costs payments due to the dismissal without prejudice.
Trump’s legal team said he plans to “refile this powerhouse lawsuit.”
Dow Jones & Co. isn’t backing down: “We stand behind the reliability, rigor and accuracy of The Wall Street Journal’s reporting.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Actual malice” for me has always been satisfied if someone knew the information was false, but published as if it was not. And I thought Trump alleged that very thing.
If that’s not an adequate standard for “actual malice” then I don’t see how there can ever be one.
Either knew it was false, or didn’t bother investigating it because he didn’t care whether it was false.
Trump did allege the latter. But the judge found that he didn’t prove it, and on the contrary the defendant did try to investigate it. So he dismissed the case, but without prejudice so Trump can now try to find evidence to support his allegation that the defendant’s investigation was a mere token and not serious, because they didn’t really care.
Even if never refiled, this is a (censored)-slap against media who have information they *know* is false, but want to run a hit-piece against Trump anyway because they hate him.
The defendant denies that that’s the case, and the judge found that Trump did not prove it was.
hmmm
so fake a letter about nancy p blowing an elephant
attempt to contact her to actually get an interview (which she of course wont entertain)
with her and of course rake her over the coals for my agenda to rake her over the coals and its good to go???
If you fake it yourself then you know it’s false, and that’s actual malice. But if you fake it and pass it on to someone who doesn’t know it’s fake, and does attempt to look into it, then they get off and your name never comes into it.
Again with the Auto-Milhouse down vote….
I find it interesting that this is more interesting than today’s news which stars N.P blowing an elephant in public.
TU Milhouse for thoughtful instruction on the practices of the global kalifate.
I have mixed feelings over the double-edged sword the “actual malice” standard creates. On one side it makes even blatant defamation hard to move through court for public figures. On the other, it’s an important safeguard against the backdoor suppression of free political speech through civil lawfare.
I like how there are two completely different standards depending on whether the victim is deemed to be a “public person” or not, as if the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause didn’t exist.
Another completely BS legal fiction invented by SCOTUS in a garbage ruling that never should have happened and is long overdue to be overturned.
As bad, or worse, is how it reverses the burden of proof. The victim has to prove that the publisher acted with “actual malice” and the only way they can prove that is with documents from that publisher. Which allows any media outlet to defame any “public figure” they please, so long as they don’t document their malice (or, if they did document it, simply don’t turn it over in discovery as they are supposed to).
The burden of proof is not reversed. It is where it always is, with the plaintiff.