Judge Dismisses Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit Against WSJ Publisher

The president alleged an article about a bawdy Epstein birthday letter was defamatory

WSJ via https://archive.ph/cXDKY#selection-861.0-883.372

A federal judge on Monday dismissed President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the publisher of The Wall Street Journal.

U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, based in Miami, Fla., ruled Trump hadn’t made a valid legal claim that he was defamed by an article about a letter to financier Jeffrey Epstein bearing Trump’s name.

The judge said that to show defamation, Trump had to demonstrate that the Journal and its reporters acted with “actual malice,” meaning they deliberately published a false story or showed reckless disregard for the truth. Trump failed to show that the reporters acted with ill will and deliberately avoided investigating his claim that the letter was fake, the judge said.

NB The "blockbuster" suit can be re-filed before April 27

Tired of all the winning yet?

And the MAGAs will say he can appeal. Too bad that doesn't fix the problems with the case.

The ruling says that the suit was dismissed for lack of malice.

The Trump complaint states that the the Epstein birthday letter is a fake. Trump has also said that he never flew on Epstein's jet. The released flight logs show that Trump has no problem in lying as to what is fake and what is not.

A thread Riclag will avoid...😂

Did the judge rule on any other factual issue other than actual malice?

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Did the judge rule on any other factual issue other than actual malice?

"Trump failed to show that the reporters acted with ill will and deliberately avoided investigating his claim that the letter was fake, the judge said.

“The complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite,” wrote Gayles, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. He noted that the journalists reached out to Trump, Justice Department officials and the Federal Bureau of Investigation before publication. “In short, the complaint and the article confirm that defendants attempted to investigate.”

10 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

"Trump failed to show that the reporters acted with ill will and deliberately avoided investigating his claim that the letter was fake, the judge said.

“The complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite,” wrote Gayles, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. He noted that the journalists reached out to Trump, Justice Department officials and the Federal Bureau of Investigation before publication. “In short, the complaint and the article confirm that defendants attempted to investigate.”

Im not interested in your spin and someone elses spin/opinion. Have you read the decision?

5 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Im not interested in your spin and someone elses spin/opinion. Have you read the decision?

Nobody is ever interested in your delusional drivel.

Have you read the decision? Of course not, because it will not contain anything you would like to hear, and probably many things you don't want to hear

2 hours ago, candide said:

A thread Riclag will avoid...😂

And some other ones

8 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Nobody is ever interested in your delusional drivel.

Have you read the decision? Of course not, because it will not contain anything you would like to hear, and probably many things you don't want to hear

I have, little fella. Im just checking the understanding of the screechers. HBU, you read it and understand it?

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I have, little fella. Im just checking the understanding of the screechers. HBU, you read it and understand it?

Why not tell us then what is in there that you consider was unfair?

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Why not tell us then what is in there that you consider was unfair?

Well fairness has nothing to do with it, its a matter of law at the stage the lawsuit is in. Glad to see you understand the legal standard. You agree with the decision, right?

23 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Im not interested in your spin and someone elses spin/opinion. Have you read the decision?

Then why did you ask if you don't want "spin"?

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Well fairness has nothing to do with it, its a matter of law at the stage the lawsuit is in. Glad to see you understand the legal standard. You agree with the decision, right?

Of course I agree with it, and I'm sure you don't, so give us some valid points why you not agree with it.

4 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Of course I agree with it, and I'm sure you don't, so give us some valid points why you not agree with it.

Well Im still on the fence about the legal standard but if you take it as it is, then it would be correct. Im wondering if the case is more of a vehicle than anything else, but you knew that, right?

17 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I have, little fella. Im just checking the understanding of the screechers. HBU, you read it and understand it?

Please share a link so I can read it too. So what was your understanding of the decision?

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Please share a link so I can read it too

Well if you havent read it, what are you babbling about? Wow 555555555555

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Well if you havent read it, what are you babbling about? Wow 555555555555

The thing is, I couldn't find a linkon my own. I used AI to try. It linked me to the court's website but I needed a name and password to enter.. So I don't think you have read it either. After all, you have offered no opinion based on your alleged reading of it and you won't share a link to it either.

9 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Well if you havent read it, what are you babbling about? Wow 555555555555

This is from AI (perplexity.com) "At this time there is no freely accessible, stable direct‑to‑PDF link to Judge Darrin P. Gayles’s full 17‑page ruling in the Trump–Wall Street Journal defamation case that is publicly indexed and reliable."

There's an excellent analysis of the legal issues addressed by the Judge from Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor. He's excellent at explaining judges' reasoning and actions.

Here's a quote from the end of his article:

"In addition (and unmentioned in the president’s post), Gayles tabled the WSJ’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, which the paper bases on the theory that Trump’s lawsuit is patently meritless and was brought to penalize the WSJ for exercising its free speech rights. The judge said the WSJ could renew that request after the April 27 deadline for Trump to file an amended complaint. If Gayles believed that the president’s suit had any merit, there would be no reason to defer consideration of the request for attorneys’ fees and costs; the court would simply have denied the request with prejudice."

https://archive.ph/E344N#selection-831.0-843.310

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/florida-federal-judge-dismisses-trumps-defamation-claims-against-wsj-over-epstein-birthday-card/

McCarthy does point out that Trump's claim that the judge asked his legal team to refile the case is false. No such request was made by the judge.

Good all these crazy lawasuits are nothing but attempets to intimidate the rule of law now strike down the BBC one.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/13/trump-media-guardian-lawsuit

Trump Media and Technology Group drops lawsuit against Guardian newspaper, over a 2023 story about payments from Russia.

5 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

McCarthy does point out that Trump's claim that the judge asked his legal team to refile the case is false. No such request was made by the judge.

Judge Gayles said the case is dismissed without prejudice so an amended case can be filed before April 27. No decision on legal costs awarded to WSJ until then.

If the Judge said the case is dismissed WITH prejudice, then Team Trump could appeal to the 11th Circuit. If Trump filed an appeal right now to the 11th Circuit, it could only be as a non-amended complaint.

The current ruling does not address whether the letter is FAKE as Trump claims but only the prescribed 'plausibility' standards for dismissal of a federal civil complaint.

7 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Im not interested in your spin and someone elses spin/opinion. Have you read the decision?

That's what the judge says! Not @Alan Zweibel spin or opinion.

58 minutes ago, JAG said:

That's what the judge says! Not @Alan Zweibel spin or opinion.

Are you sure? The thing is that unlike you or me, @Yagoda has read an imaginary copy of the ruling.

3 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Are you sure? The thing is that unlike you or me, @Yagoda has read an imaginary copy of the ruling.

It was included with his order of weed? And strange he hasn't responded to your request for a link, but has reported every post he didn't like

You’ve gotta admire the zeal with which Yagadabadoo defends the indefensible.

It’s a shame that his like minded MAGA mates seem to have stopped blessing us with their insightful far right wisdom.

WSJ :looks like a win for press freedom!

Guardian: Trump chickens out again!

BBC: This is a must win for democracy!

How much more “winning “ can you MAGAs take?

6 hours ago, Red Forever said:

You’ve gotta admire the zeal with which Yagadabadoo defends the indefensible.

It’s a shame that his like minded MAGA mates seem to have stopped blessing us with their insightful far right wisdom.

WSJ :looks like a win for press freedom!

Guardian: Trump chickens out again!

BBC: This is a must win for democracy!

How much more “winning “ can you MAGAs take?

Every day that passes they look more and more like the idiots that they actually are - or are just pro-trolls doing their job or a mixture of both. This website needs to eat after all !

3 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Every day that passes they look more and more like the idiots that they actually are - or are just pro-trolls doing their job or a mixture of both. This website needs to eat after all !

It's a double edged sword. You kick them off traffic counts drop. You don't kick them off, you lose quality posters. Interesting experiment.

On 4/14/2026 at 11:10 PM, Yagoda said:

Well if you havent read it, what are you babbling about? Wow 555555555555

You seem to need a reminder:

On 4/14/2026 at 11:20 PM, Alan Zweibel said:

This is from AI (perplexity.com) "At this time there is no freely accessible, stable direct‑to‑PDF link to Judge Darrin P. Gayles’s full 17‑page ruling in the Trump–Wall Street Journal defamation case that is publicly indexed and reliable."

Does this refresh your memory?