Federal Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against The Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Birthday Letter


Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed President Trump’s lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for reporting a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.

President Donald Trump denied writing any letter to Jeffrey Epstein (Wikimedia Commons/The White House || Molly Riley)
President Donald Trump denied writing any letter to Jeffrey Epstein (Wikimedia Commons/The White House || Molly Riley)

US federal judge Darrin Gayles dismissed President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal. According to a report from the BBC, Gayles dismissed the case for lack of sufficient evidence. In 2025, the president sued the company after it reported on a letter that was allegedly written by the president to the late Jeffrey Epstein. Since the report emerged, the president denied writing and signing any letter.

According to Gayles, the lawsuit conflicts with the First Amendment, which is about the freedom of the press. The president’s legal team tried to refile the lawsuit, but Gayles dismissed it with prejudice.

Read More: “Congress Needs Answers About This, and That Is NOT Optional”: Rep. Mike Levin on Trump Admin Allowing “A 28-Year-Old DOGE Operative With Zero Government Experience To Take Over USAID”

Federal Judge Dismissed President Trump’s Lawsuit Against The Wall Street Journal

In October 2026, CBS said Trump would rally in Iowa and Kansas (Image via Wikimedia Commons / The White House || Daniel Torok)
The president addressing the public (Image via Wikimedia Commons/The White House || Daniel Torok)

According to Gayles, the main reason for the lawsuit’s dismissal was that Trump’s legal team failed to present any evidence. While the president protests his innocence and claims the outlet is trying to damage his public image, Gayles did not see ‘actual malice.’

“But that is not what the actual malice standard requires and runs afoul of the First Amendment.”

At that point, Gayles believes that Trump and his legal team are grasping at straws. Beyond failing to present substantial evidence that the reporting defamed the president, Gayles suggested the lawsuit is trying to manufacture flaws in the outlet’s work. Since there is no true evidence about actual malice, the First Amendment provided an easy basis for barring any future refiling.

Also Read: “I Am Now Fully Willing To Hand Over Control”: Nico Rosberg Says Driving Tesla Cybertruck Has Been “LIFE-CHANGING”



Source link

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top