It was a quiet Thursday in July 2025 until the Wall Street Journal dropped a story that basically set the political world on fire. They claimed to have seen a "bawdy" birthday letter from 2003, allegedly sent by Donald Trump to the late Jeffrey Epstein. It wasn't just any letter. The report described a hand-drawn sketch of a naked woman with a squiggly "Donald" signature placed... well, in a very specific spot.
Trump didn't just get mad. He went nuclear.
By Friday, he had slapped the paper with a $10 billion libel lawsuit. Honestly, the drama surrounding the Wall Street Journal Trump lawsuit feels like a fever dream, but the legal stakes are incredibly real. This wasn't just a "he said, she said" spat. It was a direct collision between the President of the United States and one of the most prestigious financial papers in the world.
The Letter That Started a $10 Billion Fight
The Journal reported that the letter was part of a birthday album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday by Ghislaine Maxwell. According to the story, the message ended with: "Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret."
Trump’s reaction on Truth Social was instant. "FAKE," he yelled into the digital void. He claimed he doesn't draw pictures. He claimed those weren't his words. Most interestingly, he claimed he’d already called Rupert Murdoch and the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Emma Tucker, to tell them it was a scam before they even hit "publish."
He says Murdoch promised to "take care of it" but apparently couldn't stop the presses.
💡 You might also like: The Fatal Accident on I-90 Yesterday: What We Know and Why This Stretch Stays Dangerous
Why the Lawsuit is a Massive Deal
This is the first time a sitting president has sued a major news organization for libel while actually in the Oval Office. We’ve seen him sue ABC and CBS before, but those ended in settlements. This feels different. It’s personal.
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Florida, names basically everyone:
- Dow Jones & Company (the publisher)
- News Corporation (the parent company)
- Rupert Murdoch himself
- Reporters Joseph Palazzolo and Khadeeja Safdar
Trump’s legal team, including some heavy hitters in the Florida circuit, argued that the Journal "concocted" the story to malign his character. They pointed out a glaring detail: the Journal didn't actually publish a photo of the letter. They just described it.
The White House didn't stop at the courthouse. They actually booted the Wall Street Journal from the press pool for a trip to Scotland. Talk about a cold shoulder.
The "Actual Malice" Problem
If you're wondering if Trump can actually win this, you've got to look at the "Actual Malice" standard. Because he’s a public figure—the most public figure—it’s not enough to prove the story is wrong. He has to prove the Journal knew it was fake or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
📖 Related: The Ethical Maze of Airplane Crash Victim Photos: Why We Look and What it Costs
The Journal stands by its reporting. They say they saw the letter. They say it was reviewed by the DOJ during the original Epstein investigation.
But Trump’s team has a counter-argument. They say because the Journal "conceded they don't even have it in their possession" (according to Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt), they shouldn't have run the story. Basically, they're accusing the paper of relying on a ghost document.
The Rupert Murdoch Deposition
In August 2025, there was a brief moment of "will they or won't they" regarding Murdoch's testimony. Trump’s lawyers wanted him in the hot seat immediately. Eventually, both sides agreed to wait until a judge decides on the Journal’s motion to dismiss.
If this case goes to discovery, it could get messy. We’re talking about internal emails, Slack messages between reporters, and maybe even logs of that phone call between Trump and Murdoch.
Where the Case Stands Today (2026)
As of early 2026, the legal world is still waiting for the big ruling. The Journal filed a motion to dismiss, calling the suit a "classic SLAPP suit" (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) designed to chill free speech.
👉 See also: The Brutal Reality of the Russian Mail Order Bride Locked in Basement Headlines
Meanwhile, a similar $15 billion lawsuit Trump filed against the New York Times was recently tossed by Judge Steven Merryday. He called that one "tedious and burdensome." That doesn't necessarily mean the Wall Street Journal case is doomed, but it shows that Florida judges aren't exactly handing out wins just for "vituperation and invective," as the judge put it.
What Most People Get Wrong
A lot of people think this is just about a "lewd drawing." It's actually about the Epstein files. At the same time this lawsuit was filed, Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to unseal grand jury testimony related to the Epstein case.
There's a massive political push-and-pull here. Trump’s supporters want the "client list" released. His detractors point to stories like the Journal's as proof that he’s more involved than he admits.
Practical Takeaways for Following the Story
If you're tracking the Wall Street Journal Trump lawsuit, don't just look at the headlines. Here’s how to actually read between the lines:
- Watch the "Rule 8" Rulings: If a judge tells Trump’s team to "shorten the complaint" (like they did with the NYT case), it usually means the legal arguments are being overshadowed by political rhetoric.
- Look for the Physical Evidence: The big turning point will be if the "birthday album" ever actually surfaces. If the Journal can produce a photo, the lawsuit likely evaporates. If they can't, the "reckless disregard" argument gets a lot stronger.
- Monitor the Settlements: Trump has a history of settling these. If this goes to a quiet "undisclosed sum" settlement, it means both sides realized they had too much to lose in a public trial.
The next major milestone is the ruling on the motion to dismiss. If the case survives that, get ready for the most publicized deposition in American history.
Next Steps for You
To stay ahead of the legal curve, check the PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) system for the Southern District of Florida, case updates under Trump v. Dow Jones & Co. You can also monitor the Supreme Court's docket for any secondary rulings on presidential immunity or tariff cases that might overlap with how the administration handles these media battles. Stay skeptical of viral "leaks" of the letter—if it were public, it would be in the court filings first.