The court held that Trump did not sufficiently plead facts showing that the Journal published the article with knowledge that it was probably false.
From Judge Darrin Gayles of the Southern District of Florida, in Trump v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.:
Those who won our independence believed … that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (quoting Whitney v. California (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)).
Justice Brandeis’s words, as relevant today as they were nearly a century ago, formed the “background” behind the Supreme Court’s holding in Sullivan: the First Amendment “prohibits a public [figure] from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood … unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice[.]” This constitutional protection is not limited to post-discovery motions and trial. Because “[t]he costs and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through [discovery] could chill free speech nearly as effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether[,]” a public figure plaintiff must plausibly allege actual malice at the outset of the litigation.
This Order addresses President Donald J. Trump’s second attempt to plead that Defendants … acted with actual malice when they published an article in the Wall Street Journal … linking him to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein …. As with his first attempt, he has failed. Therefore, for the reasons below, … President Trump’s Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice….
The Article
On July 15, 2025, Palazzolo emailed then White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt (“Leavitt”) informing her that Dow Jones intended to publish a piece (the “Article”) about a birthday letter that President Trump purportedly created for Epstein (the “Letter”). President Trump and his team responded swiftly. Leavitt called Palazzolo and told him that the “subject matter” of the proposed Article was false. President Trump, through counsel, denied writing the Letter and warned Dow Jones not to publish the story. {President Trump also denied writing the Letter in an interview before publication.} And President Trump directly told Murdoch that he had not signed or sent the Letter. When Murdoch replied that he would “handle it,” President Trump believed the WSJ would not print the Article. Two days later, the WSJ online edition published the Article.
The title of the Article—”Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump”—appears in bold print, with a subtitle beneath stating “[t]he leather-bound book was compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell. The president says the letter ‘is a fake thing.'” Opening with a photo of President Trump with Epstein, the Article says the following, in pertinent part:
It was Jeffrey Esptein’s 50th birthday, and Ghislaine Maxwell was preparing a special gift to mark the occasion. She turned to Epstein’s family and friends. One of them was Donald Trump.
Maxwell collected letters from Trump and dozens of Epstein’s other associates for a 2003 birthday album, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Pages from the leather-bound album—assembled before Epstein’s first arrest in 2006—are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages. It’s unclear if any of the pages are part of the Trump Administration’s recent review….
The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.
The letter concludes: “Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
In an interview with the Journal on Tuesday evening, Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture. “This is not me. This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story,” he said.
“I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he said. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”
He told the Journal he was preparing to file a lawsuit if it published an article. “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else,” he said….
Justice Department officials didn’t respond to requests for comment or address questions about whether the Trump page and other pages of the birthday album were part of the agency’s recent documents review. The FBI declined to comment….
Among those who submitted letters were billionaire Leslie Wexner and attorney Alan Dershowitz … Wexner declined to comment through a spokesman … Dershowitz, who represented Epstein after his first arrest, said, “It’s been a long time and I don’t recall the content of what I may have written….
The book was put together by a New York City bookbinder, Herbert Weitz, according to people who were involved in the process. Weitz, who died in 2020, listed Epstein as a client on his website in 2003.
It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared. Inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person.
[Description of Conversation]
When he turned 50, Epstein was already wealthy from managing Wexner’s fortune and was socializing with Trump, Clinton and other powerful people. He often entertained at this Manhattan townhouse, Palm Beach, Fla., home and private Caribbean island….
Epstein and Trump spent time together in the 1990s and early 2000s and were photographed at social events, including with Maxwell and Melania Trump….
Trump, along with others including Clinton, also appeared several times on flight logs for Epstein’s private jet.
A 2002 New York magazine profile of Epstein quoted Trump. “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Trump said. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
Both men said that they subsequently had a falling-out. Trump has said their friendship ended before Epstein pleaded guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution in 2008, served time in a Florida jail and registered as a sex offender….
Maxwell, a British socialite, was convicted in 2021 of helping Epstein’s sex-trafficking and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Maxwell didn’t respond to a letter requesting an interview sent to her in prison. Arthur Aidala, an attorney who represented Maxwell, said, “At this point, she is focused on her case before the Supreme Court of the United States.” …
Epstein’s associations with Trump and many powerful people have been well documented….
On September 8, 2025, the WSJ published an article titled “A Visual Breakdown of the Trump Birthday Letter to Epstein” which compares the signature and typeface, drawing style, third-person point of view, and diction in the Letter with prior communications by President Trump (the “September 8 Article”). The September 8 Article includes President Trump’s denial that he wrote the Letter or drew the picture and Leavitt’s statement in a social media post that President Trump did not draw the picture in or sign the Letter….
President Trump contends that these statements are false because he (1) did not author, sign, or draw any portion of the Letter or direct anyone else to author it; (2) never made or dictated to anyone any of the statements in the voiceover or had any such conversation with Epstein as portrayed in the Letter; and (3) was not “childhood pals” with Epstein….
The court concluded that Trump hadn’t actually alleged “actual malice,” which is to say knowing or reckless falsehood:
Here, the Amended Complaint falls short of pleading actual malice. Indeed, the allegations regarding malice are conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article, and often irrelevant to whether Defendants knew or should have known that the statements in the Article were purportedly false.
[a.] Conclusory Language is not Enough
As an initial matter, President Trump’s conclusory allegations that Defendants acted with malice because they “knew or should have known” the statements in the Article were false, are insufficient to state a claim. See Reed v. Chamblee (11th Cir. 2025) (finding the plaintiff’s conclusory assertions that the defendant acted with actual malice insufficient).
[b.] Denial is not Enough
Though vague, the Amended Complaint appears to contend that by choosing to publish the Article despite President Trump’s and his team’s denials, Defendants acted with actual malice. In effect, President Trump argues that once he declared the Letter a “fake,” Defendants should have disregarded everything else they learned in their investigation and not published the story.
But that is not what the actual malice standard requires and runs afoul of the First Amendment. Indeed, were that the law, any time a public figure or his team denies an accusation, journalists would be immediately blocked from publishing negative or contradictory press—a result that flies in the face of the “American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions[.]” Sullivan.
Moreover, the Article did not ignore or minimize President Trump’s denial. Rather, it 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.” … “[R]eporting perspectives contrary to the publisher’s own should be interpreted as helping to rebut, not establish, the presence of actual malice” ….
[c.] The Investigation
President Trump’s argument that the WSJ Defendants’ investigation was lacking, and thus evidence of malice, fares no better. As explained above, a failure to investigate, without more, does not prove actual malice. Instead, a plaintiff must show that the defendant deliberately avoided testing the truth of the statement to evade discovering the truth.
The Amended Complaint falls well short of this standard. In fact, the Article describes a thoughtful and thorough investigation. Before publishing, Defendants reached out to President Trump and his team, to Justice Department officials, and to the FBI for comment.
President Trump and his team responded with a denial, the Justice Department did not respond, and the FBI declined to comment. Defendants also attempted to speak with Maxwell; she did not respond, and her attorney said she was focused on her case before the Supreme Court. In addition, Defendants contacted other individuals named in the Birthday Book, including Leslie Wexner and Alan Dershowitz, and to individuals involved in binding the Birthday Book, who confirmed that Weitz was the one who assembled the book. In short, President Trump’s claim that the Defendants failed to conduct an adequate investigation is contradicted by the Article and does not establish actual malice.
{President Trump argues that Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton (1989) supports his position that the Defendants’ supposed failure to investigate suffices to infer actual malice. But in Harte-Hanks, the Supreme Court expressly stated that “[a]lthough failure to investigate will not alone support a finding of actual malice, the purposeful avoidance of the truth is in a different category. Here, President Trump has not alleged any facts, beyond conclusory allegations, that support an inference that Defendants purposefully avoided the truth.}
Grasping at straws, the Amended Complaint attempts to manufacture flaws in the investigation. First, it claims that the investigation was deficient because Defendants only reviewed the Letter and did not possess a copy themselves. The Court cannot discern any material difference—and certainly none that would establish actual malice—between reviewing the Letter before publication and actually possessing a copy of the Letter. Defendants reviewed the Letter and later reported on its contents. Nothing in the law suggests that Defendants needed to obtain, retain, or publish a copy.
Moreover, President Trump’s focus on Maxwell is misplaced. The Eleventh Circuit has held that “allegations that the Defendants failed to fully investigate their statements by intentionally choosing not to speak with any witnesses who could have refuted the allegedly defamatory statements” are insufficient to plead actual malice. Any argument that Defendants “purposely avoided” the truth by withholding Maxwell’s input or by refusing to speak with her is difficult to reconcile with President Trump’s own allegations.
The Amended Complaint alleges that “Maxwell has stated, subject to perjury penalties for lying to a federal officer, that she did not remember President Trump submitting a letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday.” Based on this allegation, Maxwell had little to offer to the Defendants’ investigation. In short, references to Maxwell are a red herring and simply do not establish that Defendants “actually entertained serious doubts as to the veracity of the published account[] or was highly aware that the account was probably false.”
[d.] Omissions
President Trump’s claim that the Article omits certain facts does not salvage his claims. First, how or why the voiceover in the Letter was typewritten or how the voiceover was confirmed to be in the third person are inconsequential details with no bearing on whether Defendants published the Article knowing its contents were false or with reckless disregard for falsity. Moreover, Defendants’ decisions about how to investigate and what to include in the Article do not establish malice. “Obviously the author of an article will have to choose which facts to include and which to omit. It is impossible to print all of the facts on which an opinion or belief is based …. Were the courts or criticized [parties] to be allowed to dictate the contents of such articles, censorship would have won out over free speech and the right to dissent.”
Finally, the allegation that Defendants intentionally omitted President Trump’s denial that he signed the Letter or a discussion about whether the signature on the Letter is authentic is contradicted by the Article. It states, multiple times, that President Trump denies writing the Letter and that “[i]t isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.” This is more than enough to cover any denial that he “signed” the Letter or that the signature on the Letter is authentic.
[e.] The September 8 Article
The Amended Complaint’s reliance on the September 8 Article to establish malice is equally unavailing. Nothing in the law requires a journalist to report on every piece of evidence uncovered before printing. Moreover, it is unclear why President Trump argues that the September 8 Article shows his signature “could not be more different” from the one in the Letter, when it includes several instances where President Trump’s actual signature and sketches resemble those found in the Letter. Ultimately, the September 8 Article does not support a finding that the Defendants knew or should have known that President Trump did not sign the Letter….
