Federal judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against Wall Street Journal

A Miami judge threw out Donald Trump's defamation case against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch with prejudice, finding actual malice was not proven.

What happened

A federal judge dismissed Donald Trump's lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch on Saturday ¹. US District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami ruled that Trump did not prove the defendants made defamatory statements with actual malice ². The decision dismisses the case with prejudice, blocking any future litigation on the matter ³.

The suit concerned a Journal story on a letter said to bear Trump's name ⁴⁵. Trump denied writing the letter and called the story 'false, malicious, and defamatory' ⁶.

What is confirmed

Four outlets — South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, BBC and RT — report the core ruling: Gayles found that Trump did not prove the defendants made defamatory statements with actual malice ². South China Morning Post and Al Jazeera report the dismissal came on Saturday ¹. Al Jazeera and the BBC report the case was dismissed with prejudice, which blocks any future litigation on the matter ³.

The confirmed record therefore establishes the outcome and the legal ground for it. It does not, on its own, establish the detailed reasoning or the underlying facts of the disputed story, which rest on single-outlet accounts below.

Where the accounts differ

RT centres the judge's reasoning and Trump's own denial, quoting his words that 'This is not me. This is a fake thing' ⁷. It foregrounds the ruling that Trump 'has failed' to prove actual malice and notes the judge allowed the president's team to fix legal defects and file again ⁸⁹. RT's account, as summarised in the bloc description, does not mention the dismissal with prejudice.

The BBC foregrounds the judge's reasoning, centring the ruling that Trump's team did not prove actual malice and quoting the judge that this 'runs afoul of the First Amendment' ¹⁰. It details Trump's claim that the letter was 'fake' and his denial of writing it, while noting the case was thrown out with prejudice ¹¹³.

Al Jazeera leads with Trump's legal defeat, centring the judge's words that the complaint 'falls short of pleading actual malice' and that Trump was 'grasping at straws' ¹²¹³. It notes the dismissal with prejudice blocks future litigation ³.

South China Morning Post centres the ruling and the letter at the heart of the case, quoting that the suit was 'grasping at straws' and sought to 'manufacture' flaws in the Journal's reporting ¹⁴. It gives space to Trump's denial and details the letter's content ⁶¹⁵.

What is not known yet

Several details rest on a single outlet. RT reports that Gayles issued a 20-page ruling ¹⁶, that he wrote the actual malice standard does not require dropping a story as soon as the subject denies involvement ¹⁷, that Trump's lawyers argued the outlet should have dropped the story once the president denied involvement with Epstein ¹⁸, that Gayles rejected Trump's first defamation case in Miami in April ¹⁹, that he allowed Trump's team to fix defects and file again ⁹, and that he dismissed a second suit on Saturday ⁸. RT also reports Trump's denial of the birthday card ⁷.

The BBC reports that Trump alleged the letter was fake and devised to defame him ¹¹, that he denies writing or signing it ²⁰, that he sued Dow Jones and Murdoch last year ²¹, that the judge found the suit runs counter to the First Amendment ²², and that the case was a $10bn lawsuit ²³.

Al Jazeera reports the suit was filed in Miami on July 18, 2025 ²⁴, that Trump denied responsibility for the text, signature and artwork ²⁵, that the Journal published its exclusive on July 17, 2025 ⁵, and that Gayles wrote the amended complaint falls short of pleading actual malice ¹². South China Morning Post reports the letter's closing line ¹⁵, the lawsuit's wording ²⁶, and that Gayles dismissed with prejudice ²⁷.

The ledger leaves open what the full ruling says beyond the quoted passages, and how the earlier April ruling relates to Saturday's decision.

Why it matters

The confirmed dismissal with prejudice ends this litigation on this matter ³. This suggests the legal question of actual malice, rather than the underlying dispute over the letter, decided the case ². If the single-outlet accounts of the judge's reasoning hold ¹⁰¹⁷, the ruling would set a high bar for public figures suing over reporting they deny. Analysis: the divergence in bloc emphasis — RT on the judge's reasoning and Trump's denial, the BBC and Al Jazeera on the dismissal with prejudice — shows how the same ruling can be framed around either the legal standard or the finality of the outcome ⁸³.

Opinion

Faultline's view

the coverage shows a ruling that is clear on its face and variously told. The confirmed facts are narrow — a dismissal, with prejudice, for failure to plead actual malice. Around that, each bloc builds its own frame. RT gives space to the judge's reasoning and to Trump's denial, and its account, as summarised, omits the with-prejudice finality that the BBC and Al Jazeera stress. Western outlets lead with defeat and finality. Readers should treat the single-source details — the 20-page ruling, the April dismissal, the $10bn figure, the letter's wording — as reported, not established. The one point all four outlets agree on is the actual-malice finding, and that is where the story's weight sits.

This section is Faultline’s opinion, argued only from the receipts above. It is not part of the factual record and cites nothing new.