Full Breakdown
Trump Refiles $10 Billion Defamation Suit Against The Wall Street Journal Over Alleged Epstein Birthday Letter
5/28/2026, 9:08:35 PM
Core Dispute: Alleged Epstein Birthday Letter and Defamation Claim
President Donald Trump has filed an amended $10 billion defamation lawsuit in federal court in Miami against The Wall Street Journal, its parent Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, CEO Robert Thomson, and journalists Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo. The suit challenges a July 2025 article that described a birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein, allegedly signed by Trump and containing a sketch of a naked woman. Trump maintains the letter is fabricated.
Background & Context
The Wall Street Journal’s July 2025 story linked Trump to Epstein through the alleged note, which the paper said appeared in an album given to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. Trump has repeatedly denied authoring the note and has pursued multiple defamation actions against media outlets since returning to office, including suits against The New York Times and the BBC.
Timeline of Legal Proceedings
- July 2025 – Wall Street Journal publishes the Epstein birthday-letter story.
- April 2026 – U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismisses Trump’s original $10 billion complaint, finding it failed to meet the “actual malice” standard for public-figure defamation.
- May 28 2026 – Trump files the amended suit, adding claims of reckless disregard and naming additional corporate defendants.
Key Parties and Allegations
Trump’s complaint alleges the defendants either knew the letter was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth, citing omissions such as the lack of an image of the letter and failure to explain how the signature was verified. The suit also claims the article caused “overwhelming” reputational and financial harm.
Data & Statistics
- Damages sought: $10 billion.
- Defendants: Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, Robert Thomson, Khadeeja Safdar, Joseph Palazzolo.
- Original article date: July 2025; alleged letter date: 2003 (Epstein’s 50th birthday).
- Judge: U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles (appointed by President Barack Obama).
Official Statements & Responses
Trump’s legal team asserts the Journal “recklessly disregarded” the truth and “purposefully avoided discovery,” emphasizing the alleged letter’s falsity. Dow Jones responded that it has “full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting” and will “vigorously defend” against the suit. The Journal has reiterated its story’s factual basis and noted it sought comment from Trump before publication.
Criticism & Opposition
Legal analysts and press-freedom advocates describe the filing as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), intended to intimidate media outlets. Critics argue the $10 billion demand threatens journalistic independence and could set a chilling precedent for investigative reporting.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The authenticity of the birthday note remains disputed. Trump denies authorship; Ghislaine Maxwell, an Epstein associate, said she does not recall submitting such a letter. The House Oversight Committee later released a document matching the Journal’s description, yet no original letter has been produced. Judge Gayles noted it is “too early” to determine whether Trump wrote the note.
Verbatim Quotes
- “At the time of publication, defendants recklessly disregarded whether the defamatory statements were true and/or they purposefully avoided the discovery of the truth,” — Alejandro Brito, Trump’s lawyer
- “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.” — Spokesperson, Dow Jones
- “The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions.” — Trump legal team spokesperson
- “Critics argue this is a textbook "SLAPP" suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), designed to bankrupt media organizations through legal fees and suppress unfavorable coverage.” — Press-freedom critic (unnamed source)
Why It Matters
The case tests the high “actual malice” bar for public-figure defamation and could influence the financial viability of major news corporations. A ruling in favor of Trump might embolden similar suits, while a dismissal could reinforce protections for investigative journalism.
What’s Next
The amended complaint will proceed to discovery, where Trump must produce evidence of actual malice. Both sides have indicated readiness for extended litigation, and the outcome may shape future interactions between the presidency and the press.