Trump’s $10 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Against the Wall Street Journal Is a Legal Joke—Here’s Why It Will Fail
Trump’s Case is Pure Theater
Let’s not dance around it: I just finished reviewing Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and in my opinion, it’s pure theater. A showy, bloated PR move wrapped in a pleading that collapses under the slightest legal scrutiny. Read it here.
As a lawyer and mediator with 30+ years of litigation experience, an independent journalist who understands the value of press freedom, and a political analyst who’s seen Trump’s tired game before, I’m here to break it down.
Here’s the short version:
This case isn’t just weak. It’s legally laughable.
Now below is the long version, and why the case will likely be dismissed.
DISCLAIMER: This is an opinion piece. Not legal advice, not therapy, and definitely not a substitute for doing your own homework. Public figures make headlines, I analyze the fallout. If you're dealing with real risk or real exposure, don’t quote me, call your own counsel and make sure you’re covered.
The Story Behind the Lawsuit
Trump is suing The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, News Corp, and a list of reporters and executives over a July 2025 article describing a risqué birthday letter he allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.
The letter, according to the article, included a typewritten satirical dialogue between “Donald” and “Jeffrey” and was framed by the outline of a naked woman, reportedly signed “Donald” below the waistline.
Trump’s legal team claims this was all a fabrication, a smear, and an act of actual malice.
But here’s the problem: the lawsuit doesn’t include any evidence the article is false. No sworn declaration. No forensic analysis. Not even a denial that the letter exists. Just rhetorical outrage and a demand for $10 billion.
Why the Case Fails: A Legal Breakdown
1. Truth Is an Absolute Defense
In defamation law, truth wins. Even if the facts are embarrassing. Even if they hurt. If the WSJ actually reviewed the letter, and the article says they did, then Trump’s case disintegrates. His legal team doesn’t claim the letter doesn’t exist. They just say the WSJ didn’t attach it to the complaint. That’s not a denial, that’s evasion. I expect the WSJ to produce a copy of the letter. Case closed.
2. Trump Can’t Prove Actual Malice
Under New York Times v. Sullivan, public figures like Trump must prove the media outlet knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
That bar is sky high, and Trump’s complaint never clears it.
In fact, the article explicitly says, “It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.” That’s not reckless. That kind of hedging language undercuts any claim of “actual malice.”
3. Opinion and Satire Aren’t Defamation
Much of what’s quoted in the article, this imagined back-and-forth between Trump and Epstein, is clearly stylized. It’s satirical. Maybe tasteless. But it’s not presented as literal speech, and courts don’t treat opinion or satire as defamatory. That's settled First Amendment law.
Saying two men “had things in common” isn’t a factual allegation, it’s a rhetorical wink. You can’t sue someone for how their tone makes you feel.
4. Defamation Per Quod? Good Luck.
Trump’s lawyers throw in a “defamation per quod” claim, which requires proof of actual financial damage. But instead of details, they claim Trump suffered “billions” in harm without one line item to back it up.
Courts don’t entertain vague hand-waving when the law demands specificity.
The Top 5 Affirmative Defenses the WSJ Will Raise—and Likely Win With
Here’s how WSJ’s lawyers are going to dismantle this case in court:
1. Truth (Substantial Truth Doctrine)
If the Journal fairly described a letter it reviewed, even if it didn’t post the image, it wins. Truth is the ultimate shield.
2. Lack of Actual Malice
No matter how Trump spins it, he’s a public figure. That means he must show intentional falsehood or reckless disregard. The article’s cautionary language and sourcing crush that argument.
3. Opinion and Rhetorical Hyperbole
Subjective language like “friend,” “pal,” or stylized dialogue isn’t provable fact. It’s opinion, protected speech, and constitutionally untouchable.
4. Fair Report Privilege / Neutral Reportage
If the WSJ relied on documents, interviews, or credible sources, even controversial ones, it’s likely protected by privileges that allow press outlets to report on matters of public concern.
5. Failure to Plead Special Damages (Per Quod)
Trump can’t just yell “billions” and expect the court to believe him. The law requires details, and this complaint gives none.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t just a weak lawsuit. It’s a direct attack on press freedom disguised as a personal grievance. Trump doesn’t want justice. He wants silence. He wants intimidation.
But that’s not how this works. Not in a functioning democracy. And not in federal court.
Let’s call this what it is: a legally hollow stunt with zero chance of survival, meant to distract the conversation, scare journalists and score headlines. But in the real world, where facts matter and courts require proof, this case is already on life support.
And it’s about to be unplugged.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
Join Us
There’s no gatekeeping the truth here, especially when powerful people try to sue it into silence. No paywalls, no fluff, no spin. Just sharp facts and unflinching analysis, laid bare for anyone who’s tired of the noise and ready for clarity.
If this hits home, subscribe and share it. If you want to back it with a paid subscription, that’s bold—and it helps keep fearless journalism alive. But you don’t have to. Because the truth doesn’t cower in a courtroom. It stands tall in the open.
Bonus Coverage
Just for fun, we asked our law firm’s AI to draft a Motion to Dismiss in response to Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal.
It wasn’t a challenging task for the AI. It took about 15 seconds.
Now let’s be clear, we didn’t scrub every case citation or Shepardize the entire thing. But even on a quick read? It’s solid. Sharp structure, strong arguments, and it absolutely dismantles the complaint with precision.
Truth is an absolute defense? Check.
No actual malice? Check.
Protected opinion and satire? Check.
Failure to plead damages? Yep.
If you were sitting on the bench, would you grant the motion?
Because if I’m the judge, this thing is dismissed before the coffee gets cold.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW [EXAMPLE ONLY]
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants [names] (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully move to dismiss Plaintiff Donald J. Trump’s Complaint, in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case arises from a July 2025 article published by The Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) titled “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.” Plaintiff, a public figure and former President of the United States, contends that the article is defamatory because it describes a birthday letter allegedly authored by him, featuring risqué humor and illustrations. But the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support a plausible claim of defamation under well-settled First Amendment principles and Supreme Court precedent.
The challenged statements are either substantially true, non-actionable opinion, or not defamatory as a matter of law. Moreover, Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that Defendants acted with actual malice, a constitutionally required element for defamation claims by public figures. Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Courts are not bound to accept legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).
In defamation claims brought by public figures, the plaintiff must also plausibly allege (1) a false and defamatory statement of fact, (2) concerning the plaintiff, (3) published to a third party, (4) with actual malice—i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964).
III. ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Actual Malice
As a public figure, Plaintiff must meet the heightened burden of alleging that Defendants acted with “actual malice.” Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279–80. Actual malice requires more than negligence or poor judgment—it requires knowledge that a statement was false or serious doubts about its truth. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968).
Here, the Complaint makes only conclusory assertions of actual malice (see Compl. ¶¶ 47–48, 51, 60), without alleging any facts demonstrating that Defendants knew the letter was fabricated or that they recklessly disregarded the truth. On the contrary, the article expressly states that the Journal reviewed the letter. The inclusion of qualifying language such as “it isn’t clear how the letter...was prepared” further rebuts any inference of knowing falsity or reckless disregard. This failure is fatal to both defamation claims.
B. The Alleged Statements Are Not Actionable
Defamation requires a false statement of fact, not an opinion, rhetorical hyperbole, or literary expression. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 (1990). Many of the challenged statements—e.g., the imagined dialogue between “Donald” and “Jeffrey”—are clearly styled as fictional or satirical and do not purport to be literal fact. See Compl. ¶ 20. Others, such as the Journal’s characterization of Trump as a “friend” or “pal” of Epstein, are subjective descriptors, not verifiable facts.
Moreover, Florida law recognizes that a publication is not defamatory when it is “substantially true.” Smith v. Cuban Am. Nat’l Found., 731 So. 2d 702, 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The Complaint does not plausibly allege that the WSJ fabricated the letter, only that Plaintiff denies authoring it. The WSJ article states it reviewed the letter. Even if authorship is unclear, reporting on a letter that exists is not defamatory if its contents were fairly described.
C. The Claims of Defamation Per Se and Per Quod Are Legally Deficient
Count I – Defamation Per Se:
Plaintiff fails to identify statements that rise to the level of defamation per se under Florida law, which traditionally includes accusations of criminal conduct, professional misconduct, or communicable disease. None of the allegedly false statements meet this threshold.
Count II – Defamation Per Quod:
Per quod claims require the pleading of special damages. Plaintiff alleges only generalized reputational and economic harm “in the billions,” without any specific loss of business, contracts, or opportunities. Such speculative and conclusory assertions are insufficient. See Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1115 (Fla. 2008).
D. The Article Is Protected Speech on a Matter of Public Concern
The article relates to the conduct of a former President and a notorious criminal—both figures of enormous public interest. Courts afford broad First Amendment protection to speech on such matters. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011). As the Eleventh Circuit has emphasized, even offensive or embarrassing publications concerning public officials are protected unless shown to be knowingly or recklessly false. Silvester v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 839 F.2d 1491, 1493 (11th Cir. 1988).
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to plausibly allege actual malice, actionable falsehoods, or legally cognizable damages. It attempts to punish protected journalistic expression and chill public discourse regarding public figures and matters of public concern. This Court should reject that attempt.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, award Defendants their costs and fees as permitted by law, and grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ \[Attorney Name]
Expect defendants to make a Touhy request. This is a formal legal request submitted to a federal agency, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, or any other federal executive branch agency, when a party in a legal proceeding wants documents, records, or testimony from that agency or its employees.
It’s named after the U.S. Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). That case upheld the federal government's ability to limit or regulate the release of information through its own internal rules, even when faced with a court subpoena.
Also keep in mind that Federal Rule 11(b) prohibits attorneys from filing pleadings for an improper purpose (like harassment), based on frivolous legal arguments, or factual contentions lacking evidentiary support. If a court finds that Trump’s lawsuit was filed without factual basis, for political theater, or to intimidate the press, a motion for sanctions is appropriate.