Judge Tosses Trump’s Ridiculous $10 Billion Defamation Suit Against Rupert Murdoch

Back in January of last year, the Wall Street Journal published a story about a leather-bound birthday book that Ghislaine Maxwell had assembled for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. The book included letters from various associates, and one of them bore Donald Trump’s name. According to the article, it featured a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman with typewritten text inside. The page was signed with a recognizable squiggly “Donald” signature positioned to mimic pubic hair and closed with the ridiculously creepy line: “Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Trump denied writing the letter and called it “a fake thing” before suing the Journal, Rupert Murdoch, News Corp, and the two reporters for a mere $10 billion. Each count asked for at least $10 billion, because apparently that’s the going rate for Donald Trump’s hurt feelings these days.

On Monday, federal judge Darrin Gayles dismissed the lawsuit, finding that Trump hadn’t come anywhere close to adequately alleging “actual malice,” the standard required for a public figure to win a defamation claim. For those who follow this stuff, that’s about as unsurprising as it gets.

The actual malice standard, established in New York Times v. Sullivan decision, requires a public figure to show that the defendant either knew the story was false or published it with reckless disregard for the truth (which courts have interpreted to require that the publisher actually harbored serious doubts about whether the statement was true). It does not mean, as many people assume, the colloquial meaning of “malice”: that they just don’t like the person. Trump’s complaint was heavy on boilerplate language about malice and light on, well, anything resembling actual facts supporting it. Judge Gayles was blunt about the gap:

The Complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite.

The “quite the opposite” is the fun part. Trump’s own complaint described the reporters reaching out to him, as well as the FBI and the Justice Department, before publication. Trump gave them a denial, which they printed; the DOJ didn’t respond and the FBI declined to comment. Trump’s argument was essentially that since he told the Journal the letter was fake before publication, running the story anyway proved they had serious doubts about its truth and therefore acted with actual malice.

You hear this a lot from SLAPP defamation filers, pretending that a mere denial by them means that anyone printing what they’re accused of is actual malice. But that’s not how any of this works. Just because you deny something, doesn’t automatically mean the journalists have to believe it’s false. Their evidence can (and often does) reveal that the subjects of their reporting are lying in their denials. A denial is not proof of falsity. It’s just proof that you’re denying something. The court wasn’t buying any of it:

To establish actual malice, “a plaintiff must show the defendant deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of the statement in order to evade learning the truth.”…

As the judge noted, printing Trump’s denial alongside their own journalistic findings demonstrated responsible reporting — the opposite of actual malice, which would require evidence that the reporters had serious doubts about the letter’s authenticity and deliberately avoided investigating further. Then printing the denial alongside the evidence, again, was the opposite of actual malice:

The Article also informed readers that President Trump decried the Letter as a fake and denied writing it. By “allowing readers to decide for themselves what to conclude from the [Article], any allegation of actual malice [is] less plausible.” Turner, 879 F.3d at 1274. See also Michel, 816 F.3d at 703 (holding that “reporting perspectives contrary to the publisher’s own should be interpreted as helping to rebut, not establish, the presence of actual malice.”)

The judge also, somewhat gently, reminded Trump’s lawyers that actual malice is an actual legal standard, not just ‘they don’t like me.’

President Trump’s allegation that Defendants acted with ill-will is insufficient to plead actual malice. Aside from being conclusory and without factual support, “ill-will, improper motive or personal animosity plays no role in determining whether a defendant acted with actual malice.”

Meanwhile, as this lawsuit wound through the courts, the very letter Trump claimed didn’t exist surfaced publicly. The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the Epstein estate and obtained the birthday book. They released it publicly, and wouldn’t you know it, there’s a page that matches the Journal’s description of the letter exactly:

The judge couldn’t consider the produced letter at this stage of the litigation because Trump disputes its authenticity, which is his right procedurally. And the judge has to treat the claims in the complaint as true. But the rest of us sure can look at it. And judge for ourselves.

The court gave Trump until April 27 to file an amended complaint, and a spokesman for his legal team promised he would “refile this powerhouse lawsuit.” I suppose if you squint hard enough at a complaint a federal judge said “comes nowhere close” to meeting basic legal standards, “powerhouse” is one word you could use for it — just probably not in the way they mean.

The Journal’s defense team also sought attorneys’ fees under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute. The judge denied the fee request for now, since Trump gets a chance to amend. But that request can be renewed, which means if the amended complaint fares no better, Trump could end up paying for the privilege of having sued the Journal over a story that appears to be true.

This is also a reminder of why we need stronger anti-SLAPP laws in every state, as well as a federal anti-SLAPP law.

This case isn’t over yet, but the judge clearly sees it as just as weak as we said it was when it was filed last year. As always, Trump files these vexatious lawsuits knowing none of them have a real shot — the goal is to burn time and money for media organizations, and scare some of them into softening their coverage or thinking twice before calling out his behavior.

The guy who presents himself as a champion of free speech remains the most anti-free speech president we’ve had in any of our lifetimes, consistently abusing the judicial system as a way to punish those who make him look bad.