A federal judge in Miami dismissed President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal on Saturday, ruling that the president had again failed to show the newspaper acted with actual malice when it reported on a purported 50th birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.

US District Judge Darrin Gayles threw out the amended complaint with prejudice, which means the case cannot be refiled. In a 20-page ruling, he wrote that the lawsuit was "grasping at straws" as it attempted to "manufacture" flaws in the Journal's investigation.

The suit concerned a July 2025 Journal story about a letter the newspaper said Trump sent Epstein for his 50th birthday, described in the reporting as "bawdy". Trump denied writing it and sued for defamation, arguing the paper should not have published the story after his denial.

The amended complaint

Trump had already amended the complaint once, and the judge found the new version still failed to meet the standard. The original suit named Murdoch and the Journal; the amended version expanded the defendants, and the ruling addresses the whole set.

What the ruling says

The judge found that the Journal had conducted a "thoughtful and detailed investigation" and that Trump's complaint did not plausibly allege the defendants acted with knowledge that the story was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true.

That standard, actual malice, is the bar a public figure must clear in US defamation law. It is a demanding test, and it is the reason lawsuits by prominent figures against news organisations rarely survive early motions. CBS News notes that the requirement means a plaintiff must show the publisher either knew the statement was false or seriously doubted its truth.

Gayles rejected the argument that the paper should have held the story after Trump denied the letter's authenticity, finding that the reporting process itself was not reckless.

What the judge rejected

Gayles' ruling walks through the reporting step by step and finds no point at which the paper had reason to doubt the letter's authenticity. The judge also addressed the argument that publication after Trump's denial was itself reckless, and rejected it, noting that the paper's investigation continued after the denial.

The appeal

A spokesman for Trump's legal team told CNBC that the president plans to appeal. In a statement, the spokesperson said Trump "will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants".

Because the dismissal was with prejudice, an appeal is the only route left in this case. That appeal would go to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which covers Florida, and would focus on whether the district judge applied the actual malice standard correctly.

Why the case matters beyond the parties

The suit is one of several legal actions Trump has brought against media organisations and other institutions during his second term. Each is judged on its own facts, but together they test how far a sitting president can use defamation law to contest coverage he dislikes.

The ruling also matters for the Epstein story specifically. The letter is one of the details that has kept Epstein-related coverage alive, and a court finding that the Journal's reporting was careful makes it harder to argue that the story was fabricated.

What the decision signals

The ruling is a setback for the president's broader effort to use defamation law against outlets whose coverage he disputes. It does not formally bind other courts, but it is likely to be cited by media defendants in similar cases because it applies the actual malice standard to a complaint drafted with a sitting president's resources behind it.

The political context

The dismissal lands three days before the midterm elections, in a week when Trump has been campaigning on his record and attacking the press. It gives his opponents a talking point and his supporters a grievance, which is the usual outcome of legal fights involving the president.

It is also a reminder that the courts have been a consistent check on the administration's attempts to control information and institutions. That pattern has shown up in election cases, in agency rulemaking and now in a defamation suit against a newspaper.

What to watch

Two things follow. First, whether the appeal is filed quickly and whether it raises anything beyond the actual malice finding. Second, whether other suits Trump has filed against media outlets are affected by this ruling, since they will face the same legal standard.

For readers following the legal thread, our coverage of the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a 9/11 plea challenge shows how federal courts handle high-profile cases, the Kansas ballot eligibility dispute is another example of litigation shaping political outcomes, and the federal judge's order against the Justice Department in California covers a different courtroom check on the administration.

The confirmed facts are the dismissal, the judge, the actual malice finding and the plan to appeal. Whether an appellate court sees the case differently is unknown.