Trump sues Murdoch, Dow Jones over WSJ story on Epstein birthday letter: court records

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNBC

Published Fri, Jul 18 2025 4:49 PM EDT Updated 5 Min Ago


President Donald Trump on Friday followed through on his threat to sue media mogul Rupert Murdoch after his Wall Street Journal published an article saying that Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein a “bawdy” letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday, courts records show.

Trump filed a lawsuit alleging libel against Murdoch, the Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones, and the two reporters who wrote the article in federal court for the Southern District of Florida, according to that court’s docket. The complaint was not immediately available.

“I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his ‘pile of garbage’ newspaper, the WSJ. That will be an interesting experience!!!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier Friday.

Trump on Thursday night had angrily denied writing the letter to Epstein in 2003. “The Wall Street Journal printed a FAKE letter, supposedly to Epstein,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post that evening.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/18/trump-sues-epstein-murdoch-wsj.html

---

Article updated.

Original article/headline -

Trump sues Murdoch, Dow Jones over Wall Street Journal story on Epstein birthday letter

Published Fri, Jul 18 2025 4:49 PM EDT Updated 3 Min Ago


President Donald Trump on Friday followed through on his threat to sue media mogul Rupert Murdoch after his Wall Street Journal published an article saying that Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein a “bawdy” letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday.

Court records show that Trump filed a lawsuit alleging libel against Murdoch, the Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones, and the reporters who wrote the article in federal court for the Southern District of Florida.

“I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his ‘pile of garbage’ newspaper, the WSJ. That will be an interesting experience!!!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier Friday.

Trump on Thursday night had angrily denied writing the letter to Epstein in 2003. “The Wall Street Journal printed a FAKE letter, supposedly to Epstein,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post that evening.

[PJMcK]

1. Hey, Trump!

Ever heard of “discovery?”

[Scrivener7]

2. Taco. He'll drop it before any discovery needs to happen.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. If he drops it, Murdoch could counter-sue for vexacious litigation. . . . nt

[onenote]

17. Not successfully

[lostincalifornia]

3. Unless the POS in the WH can show they acted with malice, and knowingly made a false statement with

a disregard for the truth, good luck with that.

And just taking a pathological liars word that the story is not true, isn't good enough.

[lapfog_1]

4. kelleyanne conjob strikes again??? - n/t

[Tarzanrock]

5. What insane lawyer signed that frivolous pleading under FRCP Rule 11?

[MayReasonRule]

35. Found This Thread On reddit r/law That You Might Appreciate... The Court System Is Now His Protection Racket

Click Screen Shot For Full Thread

[ShazzieB]

40. He sues for frivolous reasons all the time.

No matter how ridiculous his claims are, he always seems to be able to find some idiot lawyer to represent him. I'm damned if I know why, but we've seen it too many times to count.

I think suing is an intimidation tactic for him, one he's relied on for years. I'm sure it's been effective for him in the past. If he still had any of his marbles left, he'd realize that the Wall Street Journal is not going to be intimidated that easily...if at all.

Furthermore, I dont believe they would have run that story unless they were absolutely sure of its veracity and had iron clad evidence that it's true. There's no way he can get them to retract this story, much less apologize to him, and in the highly unlikely event that this ever actually goes to court, he'll end up looking like an absolute fool when the WSJ produces the evidence that the story is true. The WSJ knows all this, and they're probably having a good laugh over it right now.

Basically, Schlump has painted himself into a corner here. Filing this suit was a stupid, stupid move, and I think it's just another sign of how his cognitive abilities are unraveling.

[twodogsbarking]

6. The new f word.

fake

[twodogsbarking]

8. If you listen carefully you can hear the rattling of attorney's swords.

[Ritabert]

9. Discovery should be fun

...and Murdoch has real lawyers.

[onenote]

34. Why? What do you think the Journal will be seeking to discover that would be relevant to their defense?

Discovery in defamation cases typically is more important for the plaintiff than the defendant. Consider the Jean Carroll case -- she was the plaintiff and discovery was key to her case, but wasn't particularly helpful to defendant Trump.

[MayReasonRule]

37. Truth Is Generally Considered An Abolute And Complete Defense Against Defamation Claims

Happy Saturday to ya'!

When an allegedly defamatory statement is proven to be true, the plaintiff cannot succeed in a defamation lawsuit, regardless of the statement's potential harm or the defendant's intent.

This is because defamation, by its nature, involves a false statement of fact.

During discovery all underlying facts would be brought to bear.

The Wall Street Journal and Murdoch would not have published the piece the way they did unless they had absolute and irrefutable evidence of it's validity.

Trump and the GOP do not want this to go to discovery.
I guarantee it.

This is as idiotic as Vance demanding that The New York Times release Trump's letter.

Absolute proof is irrefutable.

This is that.

[onenote]

38. Actually, the burden in this case is on Trump, not WSJ -- and that's why its a dangerous case for the WSJ

Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2025, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

As a public figure plaintiff in a defamation suit, Trump has the burden of proving the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. He also must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew it was false or recklessly disregarded whether it was true. Essentially, the defendant must have knowingly lied or willfully ignored facts that would debunk the statement. This means in practice that Trump would have to establish that the WSJ deliberately lied or fabricated information, or had obvious reason to doubt their source but failed to verify, or departed from professional standards in ways that support an inference of knowing falsity.

That's a tough row to hoe -- and it will mean Trump will push for all kinds of discovery against the defendants, including the disclosure of confidential sources -- a particularly controversial issue in such cases.

On the other hand, WSJ doesn't have the burden of proving the statement to be true in a public figure case. Often, for defendants in defamation cases, the discovery is focused on whether there was injury to the plaintiff's reputation and/or the amount of damages. In a case like this, it probably matters less, except for show, whether Trump suffered any monetary harm -- he wants "vindication" in the form of a decision that the WSJ lied.

So why is this a dangerous case for the WSJ? Because on both the issue of the malice standard and the disclosure of confidential sources, there is every reason to believe that the current SCOTUS would overrule or limit prior precedent in order to make it easier for a public figure to sue a media outlet for defamation

[MayReasonRule]

39. So why is this a dangerous case for the WSJ? SCOTUS

Thank you for your informed analysis!

I'm working on doing the necessary mental gymnastics to convolute the malice standard in such a way as to moot evidentiary proof of truth as an absolute defense.

I am unable.

What twists and turns might SCOTUS pronounce so as to allow such an abhorrent outcome?

[IbogaProject]

42. More dangerous to everyone involved with getting the story published

As he will be trying to get names in the court record to turn his followers towards.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Hey Rupe! Don't forget to demand Attorneys Fees and costs!

[ificandream]

11. Do I really have to root for Rupert Murdoch now?

I have an incredible hatred for everything Murdoch. I guess I'm going to have to swallow this one. Rupert, you still suck, though.

[Prairie Gates]

25. Root for Joe Palazzolo...he's a good reporter

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. Trump sues Wall Street Journal's publisher and 2 reporters over Epstein article

The Journal published an article saying Trump sent a letter, with a drawing of a naked woman, to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 in celebration of the financier's 50th birthday..
The discovery in this case will be fun

BREAKING: President Trump sues the Wall Street Journal's publisher and 2 reporters over an article saying Trump sent a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.

— NBC News (@nbcnews.com) 2025-07-18T21:39:56Z

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sues-wall-street-journals-publisher-reporters-epstein-article-rcna219703

President Donald Trump on Friday took legal action less than 24 hours after The Wall Street Journal published an article saying Trump sent a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 that included a drawing of a naked woman.

The lawsuit named the The Wall Street Journal's parent company, its publisher, two reporters for the newspaper and Rupert Murdoch as the defendants.

The suit, filed in the Southern District of Florida, comes after Trump denied The Wall Street Journal's reporting that he had written a birthday message to Epstein more than two decades ago that featured a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman and a signature of his first name.

Dow Jones, News Corp., and the two reporters listed as defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

The lawsuit has not yet been filed on the court's docket.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. Maddow Blog-Following Epstein report, Trump files lawsuit against WSJ, Rupert Murdoch and others

On Thursday night, the president vowed to sue The Wall Street Journal. Less than a day later, it became clear that he wasn't bluffing.

BREAKING: Following Epstein report, Trump files lawsuit against WSJ, Rupert Murdoch and others www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— MSNBC (@msnbc.com) 2025-07-18T21:15:29.728Z

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-sues-wsj-murdoch-epstein-birthday-letter-rcna219701

Evidently, he wasn’t kidding. CNBC reported:

President Donald Trump on Friday followed through on his threat to sue media mogul Rupert Murdoch after his Wall Street Journal published an article saying that Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein a ‘bawdy’ letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday. Court records show that Trump filed a lawsuit alleging libel against Murdoch, the Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones, and the reporters who wrote the article in federal court for the Southern District of Florida.

The civil suit comes one day after the Republican referred to the Journal as a “disgusting and filthy rag.”

According to the docket, Trump’s claims are: "Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel, Assault, Slander." It was filed in the Southern District of Florida. A complaint has yet to be listed on the docket......

Thursday's report, however, appears to have taken the president's contempt for the WSJ to a new level. The Journal advanced the controversy with a new report on a 2003 birthday album, collected by former Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, which reportedly included a highly provocative letter bearing Trump’s name and signature.

[ruet]

14. If The President has immunity, he shouldn't be able to file lawsuits on his own behalf.

It's fucking crazy!

[republianmushroom]

15. Just do it felon, just do it.

Popcorn

[moonshinegnomie]

16. id love for teh wsj to subpeona the epstein files during discovery....

[onenote]

18. It wouldn't succeed

[orangecrush]

19. This will get interesting

[Marcuse]

20. 20 years ago he was apparently more literate and articulate. Evidence of diminished capacity?

Ghost writer? Head fake by Rupert?

[pfitz59]

21. Murdoch will 'settle' for million$

Its all a bribery scam.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. News Corps

still has the Smartmatic trial going on where they haven't settled yet (after they settled with Dominion for that infamous $787 million)!

[tonekat]

22. Has E. Jean Carroll been paid yet?

The WSJ lawyers will strip trump like piranhas, so I hope she gets her court ordered recompense before he goes bankrupt again.

[choie]

23. I wonder if trump understands

that Murdoch et al will be able to request discovery and he'll have to testify?

[onenote]

43. He'l deny he wrote the card. He admit he was friends with Epstein prior to 2004.

His lawyers will object to, and instruct him not to answer, any other questions about his relationship with Epstein on the grounds it isn't relevant to the question presented: did or did not Trump sign and send the card? The burden of proof in this case is on Trump as a public figure to prove the falsity of the story.

[pat_k]

24. Analysis from MSNBC's Lisa Rubin with Nicole Wallace

Analysis on 47's lawsuit from Lisa Rubin starts about 4 mins in on Nicole Wallace's show (limited given they don't have the complaint yet, but some insights on WSJ side).

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

29. "seize back the narrative"...

... to feed the narrative to the MAGA and QAnon disciples, "no he didn't, it's all a New York (spit patooie) hoax"!

Just adds to the chaos. I am glad the past month or so the main stream media has been mentioning that word. CHAOS. It is what the RNC/GOP has been doing in the open since Nixon. Chip... Chip...Chip... until they chip away such a big chunk that we have a constitutional crisis. Of course, we can curse The Federalist Society for giving them lots of help!

[johnnyfins]

26. Souther District of Florida

Does that mean Aileen Cannon gets more work?

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

30. My first thought when I seen the location of the filing...

...eom.

[MIButterfly]

27. It's my understanding that there are only two absolute defenses in law and they concern libel and slander.

It's not libelous or slanderous if it's TRUE.

By the way, doesn't this dumbass have a country to run? I would think he would be too busy working for the people to be filing frivolous lawsuits.

LOL! Look who I'm talking about. Sometimes I just crack myself up.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

31. Good point...

... but regardless...

[lonely bird]

36. A country to run?

Oh, you sweet Summer child.

😉😁

[myohmy2]

32. I'm...

...taking notes...

...again, this how you knuckle-down the press...

...

[dlk]

33. Can't wait for discovery

This may have been the plan all along.

[kkmarie]

41. What is the discovery phase of a libel suit

Discovery:
Both parties engage in discovery, a process of gathering information relevant to the case.
This includes:
Interrogatories: Written questions that one party sends to the other, requiring answers under oath.
Document Requests: Requests for documents and other evidence related to the case.
Depositions: Sworn testimony taken outside of court, where witnesses are questioned under oath.

The discovery phase may lead to seeing some of the Epstein files.