President Pushes Back Against Epstein Letter Allegations
Palm Beach, FL — Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump has filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, its publisher Dow Jones & Company, parent company News Corp, media executive Rupert Murdoch, and two Journal reporters. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, accuses the media outlet of publishing knowingly false information regarding Trump’s alleged connection to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The complaint was triggered by a recent Wall Street Journal article that claimed Trump sent a personal letter — including an inappropriate hand-drawn illustration — to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. Trump strongly denies the claim, calling the report “completely fabricated” and “a calculated attack on his reputation.”
Key Legal Allegations and Demands
According to court filings, Trump is seeking over $10 billion in damages, citing libel, slander, and reputational harm. The legal action names:
- Dow Jones & Co. (publisher of The Wall Street Journal)
- News Corp (parent company)
- Rupert Murdoch (executive chairman)
- CEO Robert Thomson
- Two unnamed Wall Street Journal reporters
Trump contends that the publication proceeded with the story despite being informed of its inaccuracy. “These are not my words, and that is not the way I speak,” he said in a public statement. “Also, I don’t draw pictures.”
Details of the Journal’s Report
The Wall Street Journal article alleged that Trump sent Epstein a note accompanied by a lewd drawing, which was later submitted as part of a birthday album. The Journal claimed the materials were reviewed during the Department of Justice’s Epstein investigation.
In response to the lawsuit, a Dow Jones spokesperson said, “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.”
Rupert Murdoch May Be Called to Testify
Trump’s legal team has suggested they will request testimony from Rupert Murdoch, escalating the case into what could become a landmark media trial. The involvement of one of the world’s most influential media figures has intensified public and legal interest in the proceedings.
The case will be overseen by U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, who has previously presided over other litigation involving the former president. Legal analysts say this could increase the likelihood of Trump being questioned under oath about his relationship with Epstein.
Political Ramifications and Public Reaction
The lawsuit arrives amid mounting political pressure on Trump, with critics and some allies urging greater transparency regarding his past associations. Supporters see the lawsuit as a direct confrontation with what Trump often calls the “mainstream media,” while detractors view it as a distraction tactic ahead of the 2026 election cycle.
Legal experts caution that defamation lawsuits involving public figures must meet the high legal threshold of “actual malice,” requiring proof that the defendants either knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
“This case could set significant precedent in how public figures challenge media reports,” said Professor Ellen Walters, a constitutional law scholar at Georgetown University. “The stakes go far beyond the immediate parties involved.”
What Happens Next?
While the full legal complaint has yet to be made public, the court is expected to review motions to dismiss in the coming weeks. If the case proceeds, discovery and potential depositions could shed further light on both Trump’s and Murdoch’s private communications.
The broader media industry is watching closely, as the case could influence how news organizations report on high-profile individuals and sensitive investigations.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, News Corp, and Rupert Murdoch represents a significant clash between a former president and the media. As the legal battle unfolds, it may test the boundaries of press freedom, accountability, and the extent to which public figures can seek legal redress for reputational damage.
Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to reverberate across political, legal, and journalistic circles — especially as the 2026 political landscape takes shape.
