Ever wake up to a $10 billion legal threat? Most people haven't. But for the editors at the Wall Street Journal, it's just another Tuesday—or in this case, a very loud Friday.
President Donald Trump isn’t exactly known for being "chill" when he thinks a headline is unfair. When the Journal published a story about a supposedly "bawdy" letter he sent to Jeffrey Epstein back in 2003, complete with a sketch of a naked woman, he didn't just write a letter to the editor. He filed a massive lawsuit.
Honestly, the numbers are dizzying. We're talking at least $10 billion (and some reports say up to $20 billion) in damages.
But what’s the real wsj response to trump lawsuit? They aren't backing down. They aren't scrubbing the story. Instead, they’ve basically told the President, "We’ll see you in court."
The Sketch That Started a $10 Billion Firestorm
So, what’s the actual beef here?
The Journal dropped a report alleging that Trump had contributed a personalized note to a 50th-birthday album for Epstein. This was curated by Ghislaine Maxwell. According to the WSJ, the note featured a typewritten message and a hand-drawn silhouette of a woman.
Trump went ballistic.
He took to Truth Social, calling the letter a "FAKE." His main defense? "I don't draw pictures." It’s a simple argument, but he’s sticking to it. He also claims he warned Rupert Murdoch and Editor-in-Chief Emma Tucker personally before the story went live.
🔗 Read more: When is the Next Hurricane Coming 2024: What Most People Get Wrong
The White House press team, led by Karoline Leavitt, joined the fray. They pointed out that the Journal hasn't actually published a photo of the physical letter. They argue the paper doesn’t even have the document in its possession.
WSJ Response to Trump Lawsuit: "We Stand by It"
The official wsj response to trump lawsuit came fast.
A spokesperson for Dow Jones (which owns the Journal) didn't use many words. They said they have "full confidence in the rigor and accuracy" of their reporting. They promised to "vigorously defend" their journalists, Joseph Palazzolo and Khadeeja Safdar.
This isn't just corporate posturing.
In the world of big-league journalism, "standing by a story" is a massive bet. It means they’ve got notes. They’ve got witnesses. They probably have a paper trail that would make a librarian weep.
Why the Journal is Playing Hardball
Unlike some other media outlets that have settled with Trump recently—looking at you, ABC and CBS—the Journal seems ready for the long haul.
- The Actual Malice Bar: It is incredibly hard for a public figure to win a defamation case in the U.S. Thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court case, Trump has to prove "actual malice." That doesn't just mean the Journal was wrong. It means he has to prove they knew it was fake or just didn't care.
- Discovery is a Two-Way Street: This is the part people forget. If this goes to trial, the Journal’s lawyers get to ask Trump questions under oath. They get to look at his records. Sometimes, the "win" for a news organization is just surviving the process until the other side decides it’s not worth the headache.
The Jamie Dimon Side Quest
Just when you thought it couldn't get weirder, a second front opened up this week.
💡 You might also like: What Really Happened With Trump Revoking Mayorkas Secret Service Protection
On January 17, 2026, Trump threatened to sue JPMorgan Chase. Why? Because the Journal reported he’d offered CEO Jamie Dimon the job of Federal Reserve Chairman.
Trump says the report is "totally untrue." He’s also looping in his grievances about "debanking" after the January 6th protests. It shows a pattern: he isn't just mad at the reporters; he's mad at the sources they cite.
The WSJ response here? Silence, mostly. They let the reporting speak for itself.
What This Means for the Rest of Us
You might think this is just a bunch of rich guys fighting in a sandbox. It’s more than that.
If a President can successfully sue a major newspaper into silence, it changes how every other newsroom operates. If you're a small-town editor, are you going to run a risky story if you know it might lead to a $10 billion lawsuit? Probably not.
Legal experts like those at the Freedom Forum suggest that Trump’s strategy might be "lawfare"—using the court system to distract and drain the resources of his critics.
What’s Next in the Legal Battle?
Expect a lot of motions to dismiss.
📖 Related: Franklin D Roosevelt Civil Rights Record: Why It Is Way More Complicated Than You Think
The Journal will try to get the case thrown out before it ever reaches a jury. They’ll argue that their reporting on a DOJ-reviewed album (which is where they say they saw the letter) is protected.
Trump, meanwhile, wants depositions. He wants to put Rupert Murdoch in a chair and make him answer questions for hours.
Actionable Insights for Following This Case
If you're trying to keep up with the wsj response to trump lawsuit, don't just look at the headlines. Here is how to actually track the truth:
- Watch the "Motion to Dismiss" phase: This is where 90% of these cases die. If the judge lets it proceed to "discovery," things get very real, very fast.
- Look for the "Anti-SLAPP" laws: Florida (where the suit was filed) has laws designed to prevent "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation." The WSJ will almost certainly invoke these to get the case tossed.
- Verify the "Actual Malice": Remember, even if the letter turns out to be a high-quality forgery, the Journal might still win if they can prove they genuinely believed it was real when they published.
The battle between the 45th (and 47th) President and the "Old Guard" of media isn't ending anytime soon. For now, the Journal is digging in its heels. They’re betting that the First Amendment is a stronger shield than a $10 billion sword.
Keep an eye on the Southern District of Florida court filings over the next few months. That’s where the real story will be written, not on social media.
To stay ahead of the legal curve, you should regularly check the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) for the Southern District of Florida. This allows you to see the actual motions filed by both Trump’s legal team and the Dow Jones attorneys, giving you the raw data before it gets filtered through a partisan lens.