Federal Judge Dismisses Trump's $10 Billion Defamation Suit Against Wall Street Journal

The ruling eliminates, at least at the district court level, a major legal threat that the nation's largest-circulation newspaper faced from a sitting president over a news story about a...

A federal judge in Florida has dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, according to a report by NBC News published October 31, 2026. The ruling disposed of a revised version of the complaint, meaning the court had already reviewed at least one prior iteration of the suit before reaching this decision.

The lawsuit centered on a Wall Street Journal news story reporting that Trump had allegedly sent a birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who died in federal custody in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. The alleged card was said to have been sent more than two decades before the litigation commenced. Trump contested the accuracy of the story and sought $10 billion in damages under defamation law.

The $10 billion figure placed the suit among the largest defamation claims ever filed by a public official against a news organization in federal court. For context, the largest defamation verdict affirmed against a media company in recent U.S. History was the approximately $787.5 million settlement Dominion Voting Systems reached with Fox Corporation in April 2023, a figure below the amount Trump sought here.

Defamation suits filed by public figures in the United States face a heightened legal standard established by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co. V. Sullivan (1964), which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate "actual malice," meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Whether the court's dismissal turned on that standard, on procedural grounds, or on another basis was not fully detailed in available reporting as of publication. The full text of the dismissal order, which would specify the legal rationale, is a public court record filed in the federal district court in Florida and would answer that question.

The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp, a publicly traded company (Nasdaq: NWS, NWSA). News Corp's most recent annual report, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, would reflect any financial reserves or disclosures the company made related to this litigation, though it is unknown whether any such reserve was recorded.

Trump filed the suit as a sitting president, which is constitutionally permissible. The Constitution does not bar a sitting president from initiating civil litigation. However, courts have historically scrutinized such suits carefully given the First Amendment interests at stake when a government official seeks damages from a press organization over political reporting.

The dismissal of a complaint does not automatically end a case permanently. Depending on whether the court dismissed with or without prejudice, Trump's legal team could retain the option to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals or, if the dismissal was without prejudice, to file a further amended complaint. Neither Trump's legal team nor the White House had issued a public statement visible in available source material as of the time of publication.

The case is one of several defamation-related legal actions involving Trump and news organizations that have proceeded through federal courts during his second term. Our earlier reporting on midterm legal and political dynamics is available at New York Times Flags Three Southern House Races as Midterm Bellwethers.

What remains unknown at this stage includes the precise legal grounds cited by the judge for dismissal, whether the order was issued with or without prejudice, and whether Trump intends to appeal. The court's written order, available through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system for the relevant Florida federal district court, would answer each of those questions. The case name and docket number, necessary to retrieve that filing, were not included in available source material as of publication.