On September 22, 2025, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and its parent companies, Dow Jones and News Corp, filed a forceful motion in federal court to dismiss President Donald Trump’s high-stakes defamation lawsuit. The suit, which seeks at least $10 billion in damages—though filings indicate the number may be as high as $20 billion—centers on a July 17, 2025, WSJ article reporting on an alleged letter from Trump included in Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday book from 2003. The case, unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, has quickly become a flashpoint in the ongoing battle between public figures and the press, with both sides digging in for a potentially precedent-setting fight.
The WSJ’s motion to dismiss, submitted on Monday, does not mince words. According to the Wall Street Journal, the first and foremost reason the lawsuit should be thrown out is simple: “The article is true.” The motion states, “The Birthday Book as produced by the Epstein estate and later publicly released by the House Oversight Committee contains a letter identical to the one described in the Article.” Earlier this month, in response to a congressional subpoena, lawyers for Epstein’s estate produced the actual birthday book, and the House Oversight Committee released images that matched the Journal’s description almost to a T.
The article at the center of the storm described a letter in Trump’s name, allegedly included in a 238-page bound volume of tributes to Epstein. The letter, as reported by the Journal, “contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly ‘Donald’ below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.” The letter concluded with the line: “A pal is a wonderful thing, Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump, for his part, has fiercely denied any involvement. He flatly told the Wall Street Journal, “This is not me. This is a fake thing.” After the article’s publication, Trump took to his social media platform, claiming, “The Wall Street Journal, and [News Corp. owner] Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued.” He further argued, “The Press has to learn to be truthful, and not rely on sources that probably don’t even exist.”
The White House has backed Trump’s denial. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated during a briefing, “The president did not write this letter. He did not sign this letter. And that’s why the president’s external legal team is aggressively pursuing litigation against the Wall Street Journal, and they will continue to do so.” Trump himself added, “It’s not my signature. And it’s not the way I speak. And anybody that’s covered me for a long time, knows — that’s not my language.”
Despite these denials, the Journal’s attorneys maintain that the article is not defamatory. Their motion asserts, “Even if it had reported that President Trump personally crafted the letter — and it does not — there is nothing defamatory about a person sending a bawdy note to a friend, and the Article cannot damage Plaintiff’s reputation as a matter of law.” The defense further notes that Trump has “publicly admitted that he was Epstein’s friend in the early 2000s,” and that he was even listed as a ‘friend’ in Epstein’s Birthday Book. According to the Journal’s legal team, “The fact that his relationship with Epstein may now be a political liability—over 20 years after the Birthday Book was presented to Epstein—does not change this conclusion.”
To bolster their case, the defense references Trump’s own public statements about Epstein. As cited in the article, three months before the Birthday Book was gifted to Epstein, a New York magazine article quoted Trump as saying he had known Epstein for “15 years” and that Epstein was a “terrific guy,” “a lot of fun to be with,” and “likes beautiful women as much as I do.” The Journal’s attorneys argue that the article is “consistent with President Trump’s self-described reputation,” pointing to infamous moments such as the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump referred to his own “locker room talk” and made statements widely considered bawdy or crude.
The Journal’s motion goes even further, calling Trump’s lawsuit “an affront to the First Amendment.” The filing warns, “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. This lawsuit should not be permitted to proceed.” The defense is also seeking dismissal with prejudice, which would prevent Trump from refiling the case, and is asking the court to order the former president to pay the defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs, citing anti-SLAPP statutes in both New York and Florida. These statutes are designed to prevent the courts from being used to silence critics through costly legal battles.
Trump’s lawsuit, filed in July, names not only Dow Jones, News Corp, and Rupert Murdoch but also the two reporters who penned the original article. The complaint alleges the Journal “falsely claimed that [Trump] authored, drew, and signed a card to wish the late—and utterly disgraced—Jeffrey Epstein a happy fiftieth birthday.” Trump’s legal team argues that “no authentic letter or drawing exists” and accuses the defendants of concocting the story to malign Trump’s “character and integrity.” The suit claims that “hundreds of millions of people have already viewed the false and defamatory statements published by Defendants,” and alleges “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”
The Journal’s attorneys, however, push back hard on this point. They argue that the article “does not assert as a matter of fact that he personally signed the letter or drew the image,” and that there “is not a whiff of plausible allegation of actual malice.” The legal standard for libel involving public figures is notoriously high, requiring proof that the publisher acted with “actual malice”—that is, with knowledge that the information was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. The Journal’s team contends that Trump “has not pled, and cannot plead” that they published the article with actual malice.
Adding to the legal drama, the Journal’s move to dismiss Trump’s lawsuit comes just days after a federal judge in a separate case tossed out Trump’s $15 billion defamation suit against the New York Times, calling it “tedious and burdensome.” In that instance, the judge gave Trump’s lawyers 28 days to refile an amended complaint in line with proper legal procedures.
At the heart of the current dispute is a complex tangle of reputation, free speech, and the legacy of one of America’s most controversial figures. The House Oversight Committee’s release of the Birthday Book—which includes a “prologue” attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell and contributions from numerous prominent individuals—has only added fuel to the fire. While many names are redacted, the presence of Trump’s alleged letter has become a central point of contention between the former president and the press.
As the legal wrangling continues, the case stands as a vivid illustration of the tensions between powerful public figures and the media. With both sides refusing to back down, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the boundaries of defamation law and the freedom of the press in the United States.
For now, the court’s decision on whether to dismiss Trump’s lawsuit will be closely watched—not just by legal experts and political observers, but by anyone interested in the delicate balance between reputation and the right to report the news, no matter how uncomfortable the facts may be.
