Trump Refiles Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Story: First Amendment Analysis
On May 27, 2026, President Donald Trump filed an amended defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over the paper’s July 2025 reporting tying the president to Jeffrey Epstein.
The suit comes just over a month after a federal judge dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal as initially filed, ruling that the president had failed to prove the paper’s reporting on his relationship with Epstein was defamatory.
In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles did not consider whether the paper’s article detailing a birthday note Trump had allegedly written to Epstein was accurate. Instead, the judge said Trump’s lawsuit failed to sufficiently prove the journalists had acted with actual malice, a key element needed to prove defamation in cases involving public figures and officials like Trump. He allowed Trump to file an amended complaint, which the president did in late May.
In an effort to demonstrate the article was published with actual malice, Trump’s new filing offers more details on his interactions with The Wall Street Journal, including owner Rupert Murdoch. Like the first filing in the lawsuit, the amended complaint seeks $10 billion in damages.
Defamation, which means false statements that harm someone's reputation, is not protected speech under the First Amendment. However, courts have found that public officials and figures must clear a higher bar than others when making a defamation claim, in order to avoid chilling free speech and press rights.
What happened?
Trump initially sued Murdoch and publisher Dow Jones & Co., as well as two reporters, in July 2025 after the paper published an article stating that Trump sent a letter to Epstein in 2003 that included a lewd drawing and birthday wishes containing sexual innuendo.
Epstein pleaded guilty to prostitution-related charges involving underage girls in 2008. In 2019, he was arrested on sex trafficking charges based on allegations that dated back to the early 2000s.
Epstein died in prison in 2019. As the FBI has released its files on Epstein, some people connected to him have faced political, social and criminal consequences.
Trump, who multiple reports claim was a close friend of Epstein's until the early 2000s, said in 2019 that he hadn’t spoken with Epstein in 15 years and has denied any knowledge of Epstein’s wrongdoing.
In a July 2025 post to his Truth Social account, Trump described the Wall Street Journal article as "false, malicious, and defamatory" because "the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE," something Trump said he also told Murdoch and Editor-in-Chief Emma Tucker when contacted by the paper prior to publication.
That same month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X, "WSJ refused to show us the letter and conceded they don't even have it in their possession when we asked them to verify the alleged document they're basing their ENTIRE fake story on."
The lawsuit, which sought more than $10 billion in damages, alleged the letter and drawing did not exist and accused The Wall Street Journal of "glaring failures in journalistic ethics and standards of accurate reporting."
The Wall Street Journal stood by its story. "We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," a Dow Jones & Co. spokeswoman said.
The Wall Street Journal reported that its journalists saw the letter and drawing in question and noted that it was accompanied by other birthday wishes sent by friends and collected by a close Epstein associate, all of which were reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice during its investigation of Epstein.
In April, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s first lawsuit, ruling the president didn’t “adequately allege” actual malice.
The standard, which the U.S. Supreme Court established in the 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, exists to prevent the chilling of free speech and press related to issues of public concern. It requires that a public figure or official suing for defamation show, among other things, not only that statements made about them were false but that the person publishing them knew they were false or recklessly disregarded their truth or falsity.
In this case, the judge did not consider whether The Wall Street Journal’s reporting was accurate, explaining that even if the statements were false, there was no proof of actual malice.
“Actual malice,” Judge Gayles said, quoting an earlier federal ruling, “requires more than a departure from reasonable journalistic standards ... [t]hus, a failure to investigate, standing on its own, does not indicate [its] presence.” Instead, the court said, for actual malice to exist, Trump must show that the paper deliberately avoided investigating whether the letter was real.
But because Gayles dismissed the case “without prejudice,” the door was open for Trump to file a new complaint that sought to outline actual malice more clearly.
What’s new in Trump’s amended complaint?
The amended complaint contains much of what was in the original filing. It also makes new claims that expand on Trump’s arguments that the Journal acted with actual malice, primarily to show why the paper should not have moved forward with publication in the face of Trump’s denials.
The new information includes additional details about his, and his counsel’s, interactions with Murdoch and Wall Street Journal reporters ahead of publication. It claims that Murdoch told Trump that he would “handle it” after Trump told Murdoch the letter was fake, giving Trump the impression that the story wouldn’t run. The complaint questions the depth of reporting by The Wall Street Journal. It also alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell, a close associate of Epstein, told federal officials, under penalty of perjury, that she had no memory of Trump sending a birthday note.
The Wall Street Journal has consistently defended its reporting.
“We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,” a spokesperson for Dow Jones, the Journal’s owner, said after the new suit was filed.
What happens next?
It is likely the Journal will, once again, ask Gayles to dismiss the case. Gayles will consider this request against the new evidence and arguments.
If the lawsuit survives that stage, it will move onto the discovery and trial phase. The case could also be settled outside of court.
Kevin Goldberg is a vice president and First Amendment expert at Freedom Forum. He can be reached at [email protected].
Katie Bernard is a rapid response writer at Freedom Forum. She can be reached at [email protected].
Controversial Social Media Posts by Public School Employees Raise Interesting Free-Speech Questions
