On October 31, 2026, a federal judge permanently threw out the $10 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against The Wall Street Journal. The court ruled that the claim did not meet the legal requirement to show "actual malice," a high standard for public figures. While the specific case cannot be refiled, the legal team has indicated plans to appeal.
A U.S. federal court has ended a significant legal battle between Donald Trump and The Wall Street Journal, the publication owned by News Corp. On October 31, 2026, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles ruled to permanently dismiss the $10 billion defamation lawsuit filed by the former President. This ruling marks the second time the court has rejected the claim this year, and the decision now prevents the case from being refiled in the trial court.
The Legal Threshold of 'Actual Malice'
The core of the judge’s decision rested on a specific legal standard known as "actual malice." In the United States, public figures who sue for defamation must prove that a news organization acted with knowledge that information was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Judge Gayles concluded that the lawsuit failed to meet this high bar. The court described the arguments as lacking the necessary substance to support the claim, rejecting the idea that the newspaper’s investigative process was flawed.
Impact on News Corp and Media Litigation
For investors and market observers, the resolution of this case is significant as it removes a major specific litigation risk regarding this $10 billion claim for News Corp. Defamation lawsuits can often involve high legal costs and prolonged uncertainty, which may weigh on a company’s operational focus. By dismissing the case with prejudice—meaning it cannot be brought back in the same form—the judge has provided immediate clarity. However, legal conflict in the media sector often remains fluid; while this specific trial-level claim is closed, the legal landscape remains adversarial, and media companies typically prepare for ongoing defensive costs in such high-profile matters.
Background and Next Steps
The dispute originated from a report regarding an alleged letter sent to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. Trump’s legal team had contested the reporting, arguing that the contents were defamatory. The newspaper, however, maintained that its reporting was sound and had explicitly included Trump’s denial, a detail the judge noted as evidence of professional diligence. Despite the court’s firm dismissal, the legal team representing the former President has signaled an intent to challenge the ruling through an appeal. Investors and media analysts will likely monitor the appellate process, as any reversal could reintroduce legal uncertainty for the parent company, News Corp.