• by Ray Schultz , Columnist, April 13, 2026

The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian published some very good news about themselves on Monday. 

The Journal reported that a federal judge threw out President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the publication. And in a separate matter, Trump Media voluntarily withdrew its complaint against The Guardian. 

In the Journal case, Trump (and/or his lawyers) failed to demonstrate that the Journal and its reporters acted with “actual malice" when they published an article about a birthday letter to financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein over Trump’s name. They did not establish that there were deliberate factual errors. 

On the contrary, “The complaint comes nowhere close to this standard,” wrote U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles. “Quite the opposite.” 

As was proper, the Journal’s journalists reached out to Trump, Justice Department officials and the Federal Bureau of Investigation prior to publication. “In short, the complaint and the article confirm that defendants attempted to investigate,” Gayle continues.  

The article, which appeared online on January 17, 2025, was titled “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50^th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump.”

The defendants also include Rupert Murdoch, Robert Thomson, Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo. 

A spokesperson for Dow Jones & Co., which publishes the Journal, commented: “We stand behind the reliability, rigor and accuracy of The Wall Street Journal’s reporting.”

The Trump team has until April 27 to file an amended complaint. Trump's lawyers say they intend to do so.

The Journal reports, for what it's worth, that Judge Gayles is an Obama appointee.

In the other case, Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG), the parent of Trump's Truth Social platform, dropped its defamation suit against The Guardian but did so without prejudice, meaning it could refile it at some point. 

This lawsuit seems more complicated than the others. The Guardian had reported in 2023 that New York prosecutors were probing money wired to TMTG via the Caribbean by two entities that appeared to be partly controlled by a relative of an ally of Vladimir Putin.

The Trump team responded with the suit. "The Guardian continues to propagate its false narrative that TMTG has these fake connections to Russia," it said. "It is a hoax. Litigation will continue on this point and we are confident that the Guardian will ultimately be held responsible for its defamation - and this story should be retracted."

There was no reason provided for the withdrawal. But last November, Judge Hunter W. Carroll threw out most of the case against Guardian News and Media Ltd. Penske Media Corporation, owner of Variety, which also reported the story, and Will Wilkerson, a former TMTG founder and alleged whistleblower, the Guardian writes.

Of course, these cases are only part of the Trump defamation docket. Trump also sued The New York Times, alleging that reporting and a book published by two Times journalists in 2024 were published with “actual malice” toward Mr. Trump and caused “enormous” economic losses and damage to his “professional and occupational interests,” said the Times. 

However, U.S. Judge Steven D. Merryday criticized the “florid and enervating” pages included in the 85-page complaint, and noted that the formal allegation of defamation was not made until near the end of the complaint page, after pages that praised the President and listed his grievances, the Times reports. 

Merryday added: “A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective. Not a protected platform to rage against an adversary.”

The White House refiled its lawsuit against the Times in October. 

An observer might be forgiven for seeing these lawsuits as simple expressions of pique. But they could have consequences.

The Journal, the Guardian and the Times have ample means to defend themselves. But a smaller newspaper might be put out of business by the legal costs alone. 

As it is, some large media organizations have settled seemingly meritless lawsuits with the President, paying relatively modest sums. Call it a cost of doing business. 

The President has come up empty-handed in these cases for now. But the fight by news publishers to maintain the "actual malice" provision embedded in the Times vs. Sullivan SCOTUS decision in 1984 is far from over.