Letter to Epstein: Trump's complaint against the Wall Street Journal rejected, an appeal announced

Donald Trump will not be able to file a new version of his defamation complaint against the Wall Street Journal about a sexual letter attributed to the president to Jeffrey Epstein. On October 31, 2026, in Miami, federal judge Darrin P. Gayles dismissed his amended complaint "with prejudice". The president claimed at least ten billion dollars per day and other defendants, including Rupert Murdoch. NU.nl, South West and Guardian report this same decision. [S1] [S2] [S13]

This rejection does not, however, close the way for an appeal. A spokesman for Trump's legal team confirmed to CNBC that the president intended to challenge the decision. This is an announced intention: the information consulted does not make it possible to state that an appeal has already been filed. Dow Jones, the editor of the newspaper, welcomed the decision. [S15]

The judge does not rule out the authenticity of the letter

The scope of the judgement must be precisely defined. The court does not decide whether Donald Trump wrote or signed the document. It examines whether his complaint presents sufficient facts to make plausible the accusation that the defendants published with the spirit required to incur their responsibility. After a first rejection in April, which authorized an amendment to the complaint, the judge considers that this second attempt remains insufficient. [S13] [S14]

South West and NU.nl emphasize the seriousness of the journalistic investigation and the good faith retained by the judge. The Guardian and CNBC further elaborate on the legal criterion of "actual malice". These presentations converge, but do not constitute a judicial authentication of the letter or a verdict after a trial on its origin. In particular, the order refuses to include by reference the album and the subsequent letter, taking into account factual challenges concerning their authenticity. [S1] [S2] [S13] [S14] [S15]

A disputed document before publication

The initial article, published on July 17, 2025, described an album by Ghislaine Maxwell for the fiftieth anniversary of Epstein in 2003. According to the Wall Street Journal, a page with Trump's name associated a typed text, the drawing of a naked woman and a "Donald" signature. The Chair denies having drafted or drawn this document and presents it as a false document. [S13] [S14]

Prior to publication, Trump had contacted Rupert Murdoch directly to try to prevent publication. Nevertheless, the newspaper published its investigation, reproducing the president's denials. In September 2025, a commission of the House of Representatives released the album provided by the Epstein succession. The order notes that one of its pages corresponds to the newspaper's description, without inferring that Trump is the author. [S13] [S14]

Freedom to inform and protect reputation

"Actual malice" is not a mere hostility towards the person concerned. This criterion concerns the publication of information in knowledge of its falseness or with deliberate contempt for its veracity. In order to continue its action, a public figure must have elements that can reasonably infer that state of mind. According to the judge, Trump's allegations still do not reach this threshold. [S14] [S15]

In particular, the president criticized the newspaper for insufficient checks, omissions and the maintenance of publication despite its denials. The order rejects these arguments and describes a detailed investigation, including requests for comments from Trump and his team, the Department of Justice and the FBI. She also points out that the daily neither ignored nor minimized her challenge, leaving readers the opportunity to form their own opinions. [S14]

The concrete issue is the power to block unfavourable information. The judge rejects the idea that the only denial of a public figure would force a newspaper to abandon what its investigation has established. The protection of reputation remains possible, but it requires more than just a challenge to the story: specific facts about what the authors knew or believed at the time of publication. This distinction protects the freedom to inform without exempting journalists from replying to a deliberately false publication. [S14] [S15]

Defence costs still to be examined

The financial liability for this procedure is not fully settled. The defendants seek reimbursement of their costs for the "anti-SLAPP" devices designed to protect public expression from certain prosecutions. The Court finds that the arguments presented do not yet allow to determine whether Florida or New York law applies. It therefore retains jurisdiction over fees and requires that any application be filed within 30 days, with an analysis of the applicable law. [S14]

The announced suite is now on appeal. Trump's team maintains its accusations against the newspaper, while the order leaves two clearly established limits: the authenticity of the letter is not decided and no reimbursement of defence costs is still granted. [S14] [S15]