THE DAILY BS: HOW MUCH CAN YOU HANDLE?
SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do)
- A federal judge in Miami dismissed President Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over the newspaper’s explosive Epstein birthday-letter report. The dismissal was “with prejudice,” meaning Trump cannot simply rewrite the complaint and file it again.
- Judge Darrin Gayles accused Trump’s legal team of “grasping at straws” and attempting to “manufacture” flaws in the newspaper’s reporting. But here’s the distinction getting lost in the headlines: The judge did not determine whether Trump actually wrote the disputed letter.
- Trump’s lawyers aren’t surrendering. They say the president will continue his “powerhouse lawsuit,” and an appeal is expected. The Wall Street Journal’s parent company, Dow Jones, welcomed the ruling.
LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time)
President Donald Trump’s $10 billion legal battle with The Wall Street Journal just hit a brick wall in a Miami courtroom.
And the judge didn’t exactly cushion the impact.
U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed the president’s defamation lawsuit Saturday, accusing Trump’s attorneys of “grasping at straws” in their attempt to establish that the newspaper deliberately published false information about a purported birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.
The ruling was issued with prejudice, which means Trump cannot simply submit another revised complaint and start over in the same case.
But there is one rather important detail in this legal drama.
The judge did not rule that Trump wrote the letter.
He ruled that Trump’s lawyers failed to meet the demanding legal standard required to sue a news organization for defaming a public figure.
Those are two very different questions, although you’d hardly know it from some of the coverage celebrating the dismissal.
The controversy began in July 2025, when The Wall Street Journal published an article describing a sexually suggestive birthday greeting allegedly bearing Trump’s name.
The letter was reportedly part of a collection assembled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003.
According to the newspaper, the message included a drawing resembling a naked woman and ended with the words:
“Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump has repeatedly denied writing or signing the letter.
He called the newspaper’s reporting “false, malicious, and defamatory” and filed suit against the Journal, its parent companies, Rupert Murdoch and the reporters responsible for the story.
The original complaint sought at least $20 billion across two defamation counts. The amended case at issue Saturday sought $10 billion.
The stakes were considerable, even by Trump lawsuit standards.
And the dispute wasn’t merely between the president and an unfamiliar news organization.
Murdoch, whose media empire includes Fox News and the Journal, has long been a major figure in conservative media.
The lawsuit turned a bitter disagreement over Epstein reporting into a courtroom confrontation between two of the most recognizable names in American politics and media.
Gayles had already dismissed Trump’s original complaint in April, but he gave the president’s attorneys another opportunity to make their case.
They submitted an amended complaint in May.
On October 31, the judge concluded that the revised version still failed to establish actual malice.
That is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
For public officials to prevail in this type of defamation case, they generally must establish that the publisher knew the disputed statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.
Gayles wrote: “The Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice.”
He described the allegations as vague, conclusory and sometimes inconsistent with the Journal’s own article.
The judge also rejected the suggestion that the newspaper had concealed Trump’s denial.
As Gayles observed, the Journal had informed readers that Trump called the letter fake and denied writing it.
That mattered because Trump’s attorneys were trying to establish that the newspaper knowingly or recklessly published false information.
The judge concluded that their allegations did not plausibly support that claim.
There was another significant development after the Journal’s original reporting.
In September 2025, the House Oversight Committee obtained a redacted copy of Epstein’s birthday book from his estate.
The material included a page resembling the letter described by the newspaper.
That provided public evidence that such a page existed in the birthday collection.
It did not independently establish who created or signed it.
Then-White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt rejected the suggestion that its appearance settled the controversy.
“It’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it,” she said.
Trump has maintained that position throughout the dispute.
The document’s existence and its authorship are separate issues, and the court’s dismissal did not resolve the latter.
Following Saturday’s decision, Trump’s legal team issued a defiant statement.
“President Trump will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants,” a spokesperson said.
The statement continued:
“The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions.”
A source familiar with Trump’s legal strategy told CBS News that an appeal was likely.
Dow Jones, meanwhile, offered a much shorter reaction.
“We’re pleased with the court’s decision,” a spokesperson said.
The legal result is a significant victory for the newspaper, which successfully defended its reporting against Trump’s defamation claims.
It also illustrates just how difficult it is for a president, or any other prominent public figure, to prevail in a defamation lawsuit against a media organization.
The First Amendment provides substantial protection for reporting about public officials, even when the subjects insist that the reporting is wrong.
Trump’s lawyers will now have to decide how to challenge the dismissal on appeal.
And the controversy that produced the lawsuit remains unresolved in one important respect.
Trump says he never wrote the Epstein birthday letter.
The Journal stands by its reporting.
The judge has dismissed the defamation case.
But the question of who actually created the disputed birthday greeting wasn’t answered in Saturday’s ruling.
For all the courtroom fireworks, that distinction is still worth keeping in the headlines.
DBS WIRE SOURCES (I have all day)
- Mediaite — Judge throws out Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein birthday article
- Associated Press — ‘Grasping at straws’: Judge dismisses Trump suit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein letter
- CBS News — Trump lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein birthday letter dismissed with prejudice
- The Guardian — Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein birthday letter
- Variety — Judge dismisses Trump’s Wall Street Journal defamation lawsuit over published Epstein birthday book for a second time
