NEW YORK, May 28 - President Donald Trump on Wednesday refiled a defamation lawsuit in federal court in Miami seeking a minimum of $10 billion in damages against the Wall Street Journal and associated parties, renewing claims tied to reporting about his alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein after a previous complaint was tossed by a judge for legal deficiencies.
The amended complaint alleges the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper damaged Trump's reputation with an article that described a birthday card to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as bearing Trump's signature. Trump and his legal team maintain the card is a forgery, even though the document was publicly released by lawmakers conducting investigations related to Epstein's case.
In the filing, Trump again seeks at least $10 billion in monetary relief - the same amount requested in the prior complaint. His lawyers assert in the amended papers that at the time of the Journal's publication, "Defendants recklessly disregarded whether the Defamatory Statements were true and/or they purposefully avoided the discovery of the truth."
The lawsuit names a set of defendants that includes Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, News Corp, and News Corp CEO Robert Thomson, as well as two Journal reporters identified in the complaint as Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo. The complaint accuses those defendants of defaming Trump and causing him "overwhelming" financial and reputational harm.
Dow Jones has issued a statement expressing full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of the Wall Street Journal's reporting and said it will vigorously defend against the lawsuit.
The revised suit follows a decision in April by U.S. District Court Judge Darrin P. Gayles, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, who dismissed Trump's initial complaint. Judge Gayles determined that Trump had not satisfied the "actual malice" standard that applies to public-figure plaintiffs in defamation suits - a legal threshold requiring proof that a defendant published a false statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.
The litigation is one among several defamation and related lawsuits Mr. Trump has filed in his personal capacity against media organizations. Other named defendants in separate actions have included outlets such as the New York Times, the BBC and the Des Moines Register; those organizations have denied wrongdoing and are defending the suits in court.
The Epstein matter itself remains central to the dispute. Epstein, the financier who was convicted as a sex offender, died in a New York jail cell in 2019. The legal and public controversies surrounding his case generated conspiracy theories that found traction with some of Trump's supporters. Trump has said he ceased his association with Epstein before Epstein's legal troubles became public in 2006.
The amended complaint and related reporting exist against a backdrop of broader tensions between the Trump administration and parts of the press. The article notes that the administration has taken steps to restrict press access to certain government agencies and has threatened to use regulatory authority against outlets perceived as critical, actions that have prompted legal challenges by media organizations. The White House has countered such claims by characterizing the president as exceptionally open and accessible to the press and saying the administration has broadened press access in unprecedented ways.
Context and parties
- The suit was refiled in Miami federal court and names individuals and corporate entities tied to the Wall Street Journal and its parent companies.
- The disputed reporting referenced a birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein, which Trump and his attorneys describe as fake despite its release by congressional investigators.
- Dow Jones has publicly defended the Journal's reporting and signaled it will contest the lawsuit.
Legal threshold at issue
The judge's earlier dismissal emphasized the "actual malice" requirement applicable to public figures in defamation law, a standard the court found the first complaint did not meet. The amended complaint seeks to address the legal deficiencies identified by the court while reiterating the same damages demand.