WSJ legal victory over Trump means his $10bn BBC lawsuit likely to fail

The Wall Street Journal’s legal victory over President Trump upholds the long-standing principle that US defamation claimants must prove actual malice.

It raises the likelihood that a $10bn lawsuit filed against the BBC by the US president will also fail.

Under the US First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, defamation claims have traditionally been much harder to pursue in America than the UK.

But Trump has sought to upend this precedent with a flurry of claims against the media.

He sued The Wall Street Journal for $10bn over a 17 January 2025 article, which reported claims Trump sent a bawdy birthday card to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Now a Florida district court has thrown out Trump’s claim in a resounding victory for the Rupert Murdoch-owned publisher.

Trump is separately suing the BBC over misleading editing in a documentary about the president. Unless he can also prove malice in this case, it will also be thrown out.

Trump’s request for legal fees against the Journal was also thrown out by District Judge Darrin Gayles because the case was found to be without merit.

However Trump has been given two weeks to refile the case with more evidence of actual malice, which his legal team indicated he will do.

What was in the Wall Street Journal article Trump sued over?

Trump sued not only publisher Dow Jones and Company but owner Rupert Murdoch, CEO Robert Thomson and journalists Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo.

The 17 January article was headlined: “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump.”

It revealed that pages of the leather-bound album were among documents examined by the US Justice Department.

The Trump letter contained several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appeared to be hand-drawn. Trump’s signature appeared below her waist, mimicking pubic hair. 

The letter concluded: “Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

The article included Trump’s denial that he wrote the letter or drew the picture.

He said: “This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story.”

Trump filed his legal action on 18 July and on 8 September the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a copy of the birthday book subpoenaed from the Epstein Estate.

Why Trump’s lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal has failed

Judge Gayles said that defamation claims under Florida law must allege five elements:

— publication

— falsity

— malice (that the statement was made with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person)

— actual damages

— the statement must be defamatory

On the issue of malice he set out the case law in “Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard” as follows:

“In these cases, there is a powerful interest in ensuring that free speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity of defending expensive yet groundless litigation. Indeed, the actual malice standard was designed to allow publishers the “breathing space” needed to ensure robust reporting on public figures and events.

“Forcing publishers to defend inappropriate suits through expensive discovery proceedings in all cases would constrict that breathing space in exactly the manner the actual malice standard was intended to prevent. The costs and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through that stage of litigation could chill free speech nearly as effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether.”

Judge Gayles said: “Here, the complaint falls short of pleading actual malice. President Trump’s primary allegations relating to malice are that defendants ‘knew or should have known’ the statements in the article were false.

“These ‘formulaic recitations of the ‘actual malice’ element’ are insufficient to state a claim.”

He said: “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’…

“The complaint comes nowhere close to this standard. Quite the opposite. The article explains that, before running the story, defendants contacted President Trump, Justice Department officials, and the FBI for comment.

“President Trump responded with his denial, the Justice Department did not respond at all, and the FBI declined to comment. In short, the Complaint and Article confirm that Defendants attempted to investigate. 

“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’.”

The post WSJ legal victory over Trump means his $10bn BBC lawsuit likely to fail appeared first on Press Gazette.