Trump’s Lawsuit Against The Wall Street Journal: A Defamation Battle Over Epstein Ties
Donald Trump’s decision to sue The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) over a report claiming he sent a birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein has reignited controversy surrounding his association with the convicted sex offender. Announced in July 2025, the lawsuit centers on defamation, with Trump alleging that the WSJ’s story is false and damaging to his reputation.
However, legal experts suggest that the case faces significant hurdles and is unlikely to succeed. This article examines the background of the dispute, the history between Trump and Epstein, the merits of the defamation suit, the potential financial stakes, the likelihood of a settlement, and the timeline for resolution.
Background: The WSJ Report and Trump’s Reaction
On July 17, 2025, The Wall Street Journal published a report alleging that Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein a birthday card for his 50th birthday in 2003. The article claimed the card featured a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman and a message reading, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” According to the WSJ, the card was part of a collection of letters organized by Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate, who was later convicted of sex trafficking. The story quickly gained traction, amplifying public scrutiny of Trump’s ties to Epstein.
Trump vehemently denied the claims, labeling the report “fake news” and “malicious.” In posts on Truth Social, he announced plans to sue the WSJ, its parent company News Corp, and owner Rupert Murdoch for defamation. His legal team has since filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida, accusing the newspaper of publishing baseless allegations without evidence. The WSJ, however, has stood by its reporting, asserting confidence in its journalistic integrity.
The History Between Trump and Epstein
Trump and Epstein’s relationship dates back to the 1990s and early 2000s, when they moved in similar social circles in New York and Palm Beach. Video evidence from 1992 shows them interacting at a party at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where Epstein was a frequent guest. Trump once described Epstein as a “terrific guy” in a 2002 interview, noting their shared interest in “beautiful women.” However, their association reportedly deteriorated over time.
A key incident allegedly occurred when Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after Epstein made inappropriate advances toward the teenage daughter of a club member. According to The Grifter’s Club, a 2020 book about Mar-a-Lago, this ban took place before Epstein’s criminal activities became widely known.
Trump has since distanced himself from Epstein, claiming in 2019 that he had not spoken to him in over 15 years. While Trump’s name appears in Epstein-related documents, such as flight logs from the 1990s, no evidence links him to Epstein’s crimes. Nonetheless, the WSJ’s report has thrust their past connection back into the spotlight.
The Defamation Lawsuit: Does It Have Merit?
Trump’s lawsuit hinges on the assertion that the WSJ defamed him by publishing a false story about the birthday card. Defamation law in the United States requires plaintiffs to prove that a statement is false and damaging, but public figures like Trump face an additional challenge: demonstrating “actual malice.” This legal standard, established in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, means Trump must show that the WSJ either knew the story was false or published it with reckless disregard for the truth.
Legal Challenges
Proving actual malice is a high bar, and Trump’s case faces several obstacles:
-Lack of Evidence Disproving the Claim: Trump’s team argues that the WSJ provided no proof of the card’s existence or authenticity, but the burden falls on Trump to demonstrate its falsity. Without conclusive evidence—such as records showing he never sent the card—this could be difficult.
-Journalistic Standards: The WSJ claims its reporting meets rigorous standards, potentially undermining accusations of reckless disregard. If the newspaper relied on credible sources, even if disputed, Trump’s case weakens.
-Public Figure Status: As a former president and high-profile figure, Trump must meet a stricter threshold than private citizens, a factor that has doomed many celebrity defamation suits.
Legal experts are skeptical of Trump’s chances. “Public figures rarely win defamation cases unless there’s clear evidence of intentional falsehoods,” says First Amendment attorney Jane Kirtley. Trump’s history of threatening lawsuits against media outlets—often with little success—further dims the outlook. Recent settlements with ABC and CBS involved unique circumstances and smaller stakes, suggesting this case against the WSJ may not follow suit.
Will It Go Through?
Given these challenges, the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed in court. It could be dismissed early if the WSJ files a motion under anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws, which protect free speech in many states. Even if it proceeds, Trump’s odds of winning a trial are slim without compelling evidence of malice.
Financial Stakes: How Much Will Trump Sue For?
Trump’s lawsuit demands at least $10 billion in damages, an eye-popping figure that reflects his pattern of seeking massive sums in legal disputes. For comparison:
-Past Trump Lawsuits: In 2016, he sued The New York Times for $10 million over a story about his taxes, but the case was dismissed. More recently, settlements with ABC and CBS netted him millions, though far less than initial demands.
-Notable Defamation Cases: Fox News paid $787.5 million to Dominion Voting Systems in 2023, while Alex Jones faced a $1.5 billion judgment in 2022. Both involved egregious falsehoods, unlike the WSJ’s report, which claims a specific, verifiable act.
Legal analysts call Trump’s $10 billion demand “symbolic” and “unrealistic.” Even if he wins, awards are typically tied to demonstrable harm, such as lost income or reputation, which are hard to quantify at that scale for a figure like Trump. A more plausible award, if any, would be in the millions—not billions.
Settlement Possibilities
Despite the long odds, a settlement remains possible. Media companies sometimes opt to settle defamation suits to avoid costly litigation and reputational risks. Trump’s recent settlements with ABC and CBS—reportedly $15 million and $10 million, respectively—suggest he can extract concessions from outlets wary of prolonged battles. However, the WSJ and News Corp may resist:
-Reputation: The WSJ prides itself on journalistic credibility and may fight to defend its reporting.
-Murdoch Factor: Rupert Murdoch, once an ally of Trump’s, has grown critical of him in recent years, potentially reducing the incentive to settle.
If a settlement occurs, it would likely be far less than $10 billion—perhaps in the tens of millions—and include a retraction or apology. Yet, given the WSJ’s stance, a courtroom showdown seems equally probable.
Timeline: How Long Will It Take?
Defamation lawsuits can stretch over years, especially for high-profile cases. Here’s a potential timeline:
-Initial Filings and Motions (2025-2026): The WSJ could move to dismiss the case within months, delaying proceedings if denied.
-Discovery Phase (2026-2027): If the case advances, both sides will gather evidence, a process that could take 12-18 months.
-Trial (2027-2028): A trial, if reached, might not occur until 2027 or later, followed by appeals that could extend into 2029.
This protracted timeline aligns with cases like Dominion v. Fox News, which took over two years before settling. For Trump, the duration could amplify scrutiny of his Epstein ties, countering any intent to quickly quash the story.
Broader Context: The Epstein Connection
The lawsuit unfolds against the backdrop of renewed interest in Epstein, fueled by the 2025 release of additional court documents. Trump’s legal action may be seen as an attempt to deflect attention from these revelations, though it risks backfiring by keeping the Epstein association in the headlines. His base remains divided, with some supporters frustrated by his administration’s reluctance to fully disclose Epstein-related files, while others view the WSJ report as a smear campaign.