WSJ seeks – The Wall Street Journal asked a judge to throw out President Donald Trump’s revised defamation lawsuit over its Jeffrey Epstein letter story, arguing the new filing simply repackages claims dismissed in April and still fails to show “actual malice.”
When President Donald Trump refiled his defamation lawsuit over the Wall Street Journal’s Jeffrey Epstein letter story. the Wall Street Journal didn’t wait to respond. This week. the publication—through its parent company Dow Jones & Company—told a judge the revised complaint still doesn’t meet the legal standard needed to proceed.
The Wall Street Journal filed a motion asking a judge to throw out President Donald Trump’s revised lawsuit over its Jeffrey Epstein letter story, defending the complaint simply “re-package[d]” claims that were dismissed in April.
In court documents obtained and viewed by TheWrap, attorneys for Dow Jones & Company, the WSJ’s parent company, argued that the president’s updated suit “does not remedy any of the defects identified in the court’s dismissal order.”
The filing went further, saying the new allegations don’t close the gap the court identified. “In fact, it compounds them … Plaintiff still fails to plausibly plead that Defendants published the Article with actual malice. The FAC’s new allegations re-package Plaintiff’s earlier argument—rejected by this Court—that the Journal did not investigate before publishing. But failure to investigate is not actual malice.”.
Trump’s latest push came after he argued the article contained “glaring omissions” that, in his view, showed actual malice. The WSJ’s response was blunt: “much of the ‘omitted’ information is, in fact, included in the Article. And even if these omissions existed, none would plausibly plead Defendants believed the Article to be false.”.
The motion also addressed the underlying meaning of the story. “Second, the Article does not have a defamatory meaning,” the filing noted. “Even if the Article had reported that Plaintiff personally crafted the letter to Epstein—and it does not—there is nothing defamatory about a person sending a bawdy note to a friend.”.
Then the WSJ turned to what it says is proof. “Third, the Article was proven true when Congress released a letter identical to the one described in the Article, which the FAC now directly incorporates by reference.”
Trump’s case is rooted in an account the WSJ published about his alleged ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including a lewd birthday card that featured the president’s alleged signature. Trump has denied signing the letter in question.
He first filed a defamation suit in July 2025 against the Journal, its parent company Dow Jones and owner Rupert Murdoch. At the time. Trump wrote: “I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his ‘pile of garbage’ newspaper. the WSJ. ” adding. “That will be an interesting experience!!!”.
But in April, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s lawsuit, finding the complaint came “nowhere close” to establishing that journalists acted with actual malice in their reporting.
That setback didn’t end the fight. At the end of May, Trump refiled a $10 billion defamation lawsuit. In it, he alleged the publication “recklessly disregarded” whether the letter to Epstein was actually sent by the president and called into question how the signature “was verified.”
A spokesperson for the president stood by the lawsuit in a statement shared with media on Wednesday: “President Trump has filed a powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other Defendants. The President will continue to hold those who mislead the American People with Fake News and smears accountable for their actions.”.
The WSJ’s motion suggests the next phase of the case will come down to the same key issue that derailed the earlier complaint: whether Trump can plausibly show “actual malice” rather than disagreements about investigation, omissions, or verification details.
Wall Street Journal WSJ Dow Jones Rupert Murdoch Donald Trump defamation lawsuit Jeffrey Epstein letter actual malice Congress released letter legal motion