Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. are seeking to dismiss a US$10 billion defamation lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump over a Wall Street Journal article linking him to a risqué birthday note sent to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The legal clash, which has drawn national attention, highlights the persistent tensions between the former president and major media outlets, as well as the broader debate over press freedom and the boundaries of public scrutiny for political figures.
The controversy began on July 17, 2025, when The Wall Street Journal published a story detailing a 2003 birthday greeting allegedly bearing Trump’s signature and a sketch of a naked woman, sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday. The article described the note as part of a collection compiled by Epstein’s longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, and later shared with Congress by lawyers for Epstein’s estate. According to the Journal, the note included a sexually suggestive drawing and a birthday wish: “may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump responded swiftly. On July 18, he filed a US$10 billion libel suit against Murdoch, News Corp., and Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co., calling the report “false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS ‘article’ in the useless ‘rag’ that is,” as cited on his Truth Social account. He has repeatedly denied writing the letter or the drawing, insisting the signature is not his and that “no authentic letter or drawing exists.” The White House, when contacted, referred inquiries to Trump’s personal legal team, who did not immediately respond.
The suit comes at a time when Trump is facing criticism from both his conservative base and congressional Democrats over his administration’s handling of the Epstein case. The Justice Department, in early July, declined to release further files from its sex trafficking investigation into Epstein, despite earlier promises from Trump and his allies to do so. The decision fueled suspicions and added pressure on the administration, especially as House Democrats investigating Epstein’s operations released the alleged birthday note to the public on September 8, 2025.
In their September 22 motion to dismiss, lawyers for Murdoch and News Corp. described Trump’s lawsuit as “an affront to the First Amendment” and argued that the Journal’s reporting was accurate and substantiated by documents released by Congress. “By its very nature, this meritless lawsuit threatens to chill the speech of those who dare to publish content that the President does not like,” the filing stated, as reported by The Wall Street Journal and The Independent. The lawyers further asserted, “The Article is true,” noting that the letter released by Congress was “identical” to the one described in the original article. They emphasized that the First Amendment’s protections for truthful speech “are the backbone of the Constitution.”
Trump’s legal team, however, maintains that the letter is a forgery orchestrated by political opponents. The White House has denied the authenticity of the signature, and Trump’s lawyers have called the birthday greeting “fake.” In a congressional hearing, FBI Director Kash Patel was pressed by Democratic lawmakers to investigate the Epstein estate for allegedly forging the president’s signature, to which Patel tentatively agreed, stating, “Sure, I’ll do it.”
The dispute over the letter is only the latest chapter in Trump’s ongoing battles with the press. In recent months, he has filed multiple lawsuits against major media outlets, alleging unfair or false reporting. Earlier in September, a federal judge dismissed Trump’s US$15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, criticizing the complaint for lacking a concise statement and including “repetitive,” “superfluous,” and “florid” allegations. The judge did, however, grant Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint that adheres to court rules.
Legal experts note that defamation cases brought by public figures like Trump face a high bar. To prevail, plaintiffs must demonstrate “actual malice”—that is, not only that the statements were false, but that the publisher knew or should have known they were false. According to CBC News, this standard is intended to protect robust debate and investigative reporting, especially on matters of public concern.
Murdoch’s legal team has argued that the article in question could not plausibly harm Trump’s reputation, given his well-documented history of “locker room” talk and bawdy comments about women, referencing the infamous Access Hollywood tape and other public statements. “Any allegation that President Trump wrote a bawdy birthday note is thus consistent with his public reputation—which he has himself acknowledged—for using ‘locker room’ talk and does not plausibly state any harm,” the lawyers wrote.
The Journal’s article also included Trump’s denial, a fact his lawyers say demonstrates the paper’s commitment to balanced reporting. News Corp. maintains that the reporting was “consistent both with his general reputation and the actual letter released by the House Oversight Committee.”
The broader context of the Epstein scandal continues to cast a long shadow over the proceedings. Epstein, who died in jail by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, was accused of abusing dozens of minors. Maxwell, now serving a 20-year sentence for her role in recruiting and grooming girls for Epstein, has appealed her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justice Department’s decision to close the investigation this summer has only intensified public scrutiny and conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, the legal wrangling over Trump’s alleged birthday note underscores the fraught relationship between the former president and the press. While Trump and his supporters accuse major outlets of partisan bias and defamation, Democrats and press freedom advocates warn that his aggressive litigation strategy threatens to chill critical coverage and undermine the First Amendment. As The Wall Street Journal put it in their court filing, “This case calls out for dismissal,” warning that it sets a dangerous precedent for silencing journalists who report on matters of public interest.
As the case awaits a decision from U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami, both sides remain entrenched. Murdoch, despite his advanced age, has agreed to provide Trump’s lawyers with a sworn declaration about his health and regular updates, as part of a deal to delay any deposition in the case. For now, the battle lines are drawn—not just over a single letter, but over the very principles of free speech and accountability in American democracy.
With the stakes high and the facts fiercely contested, the outcome of this lawsuit may echo far beyond the courtroom, shaping the boundaries of press freedom and presidential power for years to come.
