Trump Sues Murdoch and Wall Street Journal for $10 Billion Over Report Tying Him to Epstein Letter

(RightwingJournal.com) – President Trump is praising Rupert Murdoch as “one of a kind” even as he presses a $10 billion defamation lawsuit that could reshape how legacy media handles explosive, reputation-damaging claims.

Quick Take

Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch, News Corp., Dow Jones, and The Wall Street Journal over a report alleging he sent a sexually explicit 2003 birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein—an allegation Trump denies.
Trump’s legal team sought an expedited deposition of Murdoch, citing his age and reported health issues, but later agreed to a compromise focused on sworn health disclosures.
A joint stipulation paused discovery while the court considers a motion to dismiss, delaying any immediate testimony fight.
The episode highlights how media power, political influence, and defamation law collide when claims involve the Epstein scandal.

Trump’s Lawsuit Targets a High-Profile Epstein-Linked Claim

President Trump’s defamation lawsuit stems from a Wall Street Journal story reporting that his name appeared on a 2003 letter to Jeffrey Epstein included in an Epstein birthday book compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump denies the letter’s authenticity and says the White House rejected the claim immediately after publication. The suit names Murdoch, News Corp., Dow Jones, the Journal, and others, and seeks $10 billion in damages.

Trump’s filings also describe a direct outreach effort before the story ran, saying he contacted Murdoch and believed Murdoch could stop or address the publication. After the article published, Trump publicly criticized Murdoch and then filed the lawsuit the next day. Dow Jones has responded by expressing confidence in the reporting and indicating it plans a vigorous legal defense, setting up a clash over what editors knew and when.

Why Murdoch’s Health Became a Courtroom Issue

Trump’s lawyers pushed for a fast deposition of Murdoch, emphasizing that Murdoch was in his mid-90s and citing health concerns described in court filings, including incidents like fainting, a broken back, a torn Achilles, and atrial fibrillation. The argument was straightforward: if Murdoch has unique knowledge relevant to the dispute, delay could risk losing testimony due to age or illness. That request placed unusual pressure on a media owner rarely pulled into rapid testimony demands.

A Partial Truce: Sworn Health Declarations and a Discovery Pause

The immediate push for an expedited deposition did not last. The parties later filed a joint stipulation in which Trump dropped the demand for a near-term deposition and Murdoch agreed to provide a sworn declaration about his health, plus ongoing updates and notice of material changes. The agreement also paused discovery while the court evaluates a motion to dismiss. Practically, that means the legal fight moves first to threshold questions before costly document battles accelerate.

The Political and Cultural Stakes for Conservatives Watching the Press

For many conservatives, the deeper issue is not celebrity gossip or a social spat between powerful men; it is whether major outlets can publish the most damaging insinuations tied to Epstein with minimal accountability if the underlying evidence is disputed. Defamation law turns on standards like actual malice for public figures, and both sides are positioning accordingly: Trump says the claim is false and damaging, while the publisher says its reporting is solid and defensible.

What to Watch Next as the Case Sits in Federal Court

The case is in federal court in Miami, and the schedule now hinges on the motion to dismiss and related court orders. If the case survives early dismissal, discovery could reopen and widen into questions about sourcing, editorial decision-making, and who had access to the underlying materials. If it ends early, it will reinforce the steep legal climb public figures face in defamation disputes. Either way, the sworn-health arrangement signals both sides see real procedural risk in delay.

One limitation is that key disputed facts remain unresolved in the public record: the authenticity of the alleged letter has not been established here, and claims about private conversations are generally hard to verify without testimony or documents. That uncertainty is why the court process matters. Conservatives who want accountability from elite institutions will be watching whether the legal system forces transparency—or whether procedural barriers keep the story stuck in headlines rather than evidence.