President Donald Trump has refiled his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch, renewing his claim that the newspaper knowingly published a fabricated story tying him to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for Florida's Southern District, centers on a WSJ report alleging Trump sent Epstein a lewd birthday card in 2003, a claim the president has flatly denied from the start.
The refiling comes after U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed the original suit, ruling that Trump had not met the "actual malice" standard required when a public figure alleges defamation. Trump's legal team is now taking another run at clearing that bar.
The stakes are considerable, not just for the $10 billion in damages Trump is seeking, but for the broader question of whether legacy media outlets face real consequences when they publish allegations a sitting president calls fabricated.
The Wall Street Journal story, published last year by reporter Joe Palazzolo, alleged that Trump sent Epstein a birthday card for his 50th birthday in 2003. The card was described as containing "several lines of typewritten text surrounded by the outline of a naked woman, sketched in marker." The description further claimed "the illustration also includes two small arcs representing breasts, with Trump's signature written below the waist and resembling pubic hair."
Trump has denied the allegations in stark terms.
"This is not me. This is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story. I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women. It's not my language. It's not my words."
On Truth Social, Trump went further, asserting that the Journal had been warned before publication that the card was a fabrication, and that a lawsuit would follow if the paper ran the story anyway.
"The Wall Street Journal, and 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."
That warning, if verified in court filings, could become a central element in the refiled case. Pre-publication notice that a story's subject disputes its accuracy is precisely the kind of evidence defamation plaintiffs point to when arguing a publisher acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Judge Gayles's initial dismissal turned on the legal standard set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which requires public figures to prove a publisher acted with "actual malice", meaning the outlet either knew the material was false or published it with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. It is one of the highest bars in American law, and it has shielded media organizations from defamation liability for decades.
Trump's decision to refile suggests his legal team believes it can present new or stronger evidence to satisfy that standard. The details of the refiled complaint have not been made public in the available reporting, and the case number is not yet known. But the core theory remains the same: that the Journal published a story it knew or should have known was false, causing Trump both financial and reputational harm.
The president's willingness to pursue aggressive legal action is not new. He has used litigation as a tool against institutions he views as hostile, a pattern that recently yielded a formal apology and a $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund from the IRS after Trump leveraged a separate $10 billion lawsuit into a settlement.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt mounted a sharp public defense of the president on X, calling the birthday card story false and questioning the journalistic ethics of the reporter who wrote it.
"The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire 'Birthday Card' story is false. As I have said all along, it's very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it."
Leavitt did not stop there. She accused Palazzolo of denying the White House any meaningful opportunity to respond before publication.
"President Trump's legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation. Furthermore, the 'reporter' @joe_palazzolo who wrote this hatchet job reached out for comment at the EXACT same minute he published his story giving us no time to respond. This is FAKE NEWS to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax!"
If Leavitt's account of the timeline is accurate, that Palazzolo contacted the White House for comment at the same moment the story went live, it raises a serious process question. Standard journalistic practice calls for giving subjects a reasonable window to respond before publication. Simultaneous outreach and publication would undercut any claim that the Journal sought the president's side in good faith.
Vice President JD Vance offered his own blunt assessment of the allegations, dismissing them as "complete and utter bulls***."
Defamation suits by public officials against major newspapers rarely succeed in American courts. The actual malice standard was designed to protect the press, and judges have historically interpreted it generously. But the legal landscape is not static. Several high-profile cases in recent years have tested the boundaries of media liability, and there is growing appetite, particularly among conservatives, for holding outlets accountable when reporting crosses from aggressive into reckless.
Trump's refiling also carries political weight. By naming Murdoch personally as a defendant alongside the Journal, the suit sends a signal that goes beyond the newsroom. It targets ownership directly, a move that raises the personal and corporate cost of publishing material the plaintiff considers defamatory.
The president has shown repeatedly that he is willing to use every available lever, legal, political, and rhetorical, against those he views as acting in bad faith. That posture has reshaped the Republican Party's relationship with legacy media and carried consequences for figures across the political spectrum who have crossed him.
Several key questions hang over the case. The Wall Street Journal and Murdoch have not publicly responded to the refiled lawsuit in the available reporting. Whether the Journal stands by its original story, and what evidence it would present in its defense, remains unknown.
Equally unclear is what specific evidence Trump's legal team plans to marshal in the refiled complaint. The president's public denials are emphatic, but courts require more than emphatic denials. The refiled suit will need to show either that the card itself is fabricated or that the Journal had reason to know its provenance was unreliable and published anyway.
The case also raises broader questions about how legacy media institutions handle politically explosive material. Democrats have pushed back against Trump on multiple fronts, including threatening to hold key legislation hostage over Trump administration appointments. The Epstein story sits at the intersection of media conduct and partisan combat, a space where facts and agendas can be difficult to separate.
Trump's aggressive use of social media to frame the narrative before courts weigh in mirrors his approach to other political battles, including his public posture toward former political rivals.
The refiled suit will test whether the judicial system can hold a major newspaper to account when a sitting president says its reporting is fabricated, or whether the actual malice standard remains an effectively impenetrable shield. For Trump, the case is personal. For the press, it is existential in a different way: a $10 billion judgment would reshape the economics of investigative journalism overnight.
None of that changes the core factual question. Either Trump sent that card or he didn't. The Journal either verified its sourcing or it didn't. Courts exist to answer exactly those kinds of questions, and this time, Trump's legal team is coming back for a second try.
When a newspaper publishes a story a president calls fake, ignores his warning, and then, by the White House's account, gives him zero time to respond, the lawsuit practically writes itself. Whether a judge agrees is another matter. But the question deserves an answer, and the Journal deserves to provide one under oath.
