FAFO: Trump Targets WSJ Over Alleged Fake Epstein Letter…

President Donald Trump is not going quietly.

After a federal judge threw out his original defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal on technical grounds in April, Trump has returned to court with a far more detailed and aggressive amended complaint, one that adds an explosive new allegation: that media mogul Rupert Murdoch personally told the president he would “handle” the story before it was published, and then let it run anyway.

According to the amended lawsuit, Trump called Murdoch on July 15, 2025, after Journal reporters contacted the White House about the story.

“In response, Murdoch stated, ‘I will handle it,’ which President Trump reasonably interpreted as meaning that Murdoch believed President Trump, and that the article would not be published,” the lawsuit states.

The story ran two days later.

To Trump and his legal team, this is not just evidence of bad editorial judgment.

It is evidence of deliberate malice.

Trump’s new lawsuit aims to beef up the allegations along the lines of actual malice, alleging the reporters, the Wall Street Journal, publisher Dow Jones, and News Corp Chairman Emeritus Rupert Murdoch all published the story either knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

“At the time of publication, defendants recklessly disregarded whether the defamatory statements were true and/or they purposefully avoided the discovery of the truth,” Trump’s lawyer wrote in the amended complaint.

To understand why this case matters, it is worth recounting what the original story actually claimed.

In July 2025, the Journal published a report alleging that Trump had sent a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003, that the letter was typed within the outline of a sketched naked woman, and that Trump’s signature appeared in a sexually explicit location on the page.

The letter allegedly concluded with:

“Happy Birthday, and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Trump categorically denied writing any such letter and called it “a fake thing.”

His lawsuit maintains that no authentic letter or drawing exists.

U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed Trump’s first complaint in April, ruling it “comes nowhere close” to meeting the actual malice standard required of public figures in defamation cases, noting that the article had even included Trump’s own denials, which made the allegation of malice less plausible.

However, the judge gave Trump until May 27 to refile with stronger evidence.

The amended complaint adds new details meant to strengthen the claim of actual malice, including alleged warnings delivered directly to Murdoch and Journal reporters before publication.

Trump’s attorneys also argued that Murdoch’s actual malice is “attributable” to him because of his ownership and control over Dow Jones and News Corp.

The complaint also cites the Journal’s own follow-up reporting as evidence, arguing it acknowledged the disputed signature appeared substantially different from Trump’s known signature.

Trump’s lawyers also argued that actual malice is demonstrated by the reporters’ failure to either include what Ghislaine Maxwell told them during their interview and consultation with her, or their intentional refusal to interview Maxwell during the newsgathering process.

Maxwell, who served time for her role in the Epstein enterprise, is one of only two surviving individuals who could potentially substantiate whether Trump submitted a birthday letter.

The other is Trump himself, who has denied it.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has stated that the Journal’s own subsequent reporting proves the birthday card story is false.

The Wall Street Journal, for its part, has called the lawsuit “an affront to the First Amendment” and has repeatedly stood behind its reporting.

Trump has also previously sought to depose the 94-year-old Murdoch on an expedited basis, citing the media mogul’s age and health.

This is shaping up to be one of the most consequential press freedom battles in a generation, with the outcome potentially reshaping the legal landscape around defamation and what accountability the media owes public figures when publishing explosive and unverified allegations.