It started with a birthday card. Or at least, that’s what the lawyers are arguing about in a Florida federal court right now. If you haven't been keeping up with the legal drama, the Trump lawsuit against WSJ isn't just another headline—it is a $10 billion showdown that has the media world sweating.
Honestly, the details are kinda wild.
Back in July 2025, The Wall Street Journal published a story that felt like it was ripped straight from a supermarket tabloid. They claimed that in 2003, Donald Trump sent a "bawdy" birthday note to the late, disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. According to the report, the letter featured a hand-drawn sketch of a naked woman, with Trump’s signature placed in a... let's just say, very specific spot.
Trump didn't just deny it. He went nuclear.
By July 18, 2025, he had slapped the Journal, its publisher Dow Jones, and even Rupert Murdoch himself with a defamation suit. He called the story "FAKE NEWS" from a "useless rag." But beyond the name-calling, this case is forcing us to look at how much power a president has to punish the press.
Why the Trump Lawsuit Against WSJ Is Actually Happening
You’ve gotta understand the "actual malice" standard to get why this is such a steep climb for Trump. In the U.S., public figures can’t just sue because a story is mean or wrong. They have to prove the journalists knew it was false or didn't care about the truth at all.
Trump’s team, led by the Florida-based firm Brito PLC, argues that they did put the WSJ on notice. They claim Trump and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the editors the letter was a fake before it ever went to print.
💡 You might also like: Bradford PA Big Lots: What Really Happened to Our Local Store
The Gory Details of the Alleged Letter
The Journal didn't just say there was a letter; they described it in vivid, slightly uncomfortable detail.
- The Drawing: A hand-drawn outline of a woman with "small arcs" for breasts.
- The Signature: A squiggly "Donald" written below the waist.
- The Message: "Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret."
Trump’s response? "I never wrote a picture in my life." It’s a classic Trump-ism, but legally, it’s the core of his defense. He says the WSJ "concocted" the story to link him to Epstein's crimes, even though they already had a well-documented (though later severed) friendship.
It’s Not Just About One Article
If you think this is only about a 20-year-old birthday card, you’re missing the bigger picture. This is part of a massive legal "blitzkrieg" against the media.
Just look at the scorecard from the last year. ABC and George Stephanopoulos? They settled a defamation suit for $15 million (which went to Trump’s presidential library). CBS? They settled for $16 million over how they edited a 60 Minutes interview.
Basically, Trump has found a strategy that works. Even if legal experts like those at the Knight First Amendment Institute call these suits "frivolous," the big media companies are starting to pay up to avoid years of expensive discovery and depositions.
The Current Status in 2026
As of January 2026, the case is still grinding through the Southern District of Florida. Murdoch and the WSJ reached a deal to postpone depositions until the judge rules on a motion to dismiss.
💡 You might also like: Smart Tax Clifton NJ: Why Most Locals Are Swapping Software for Real Experts
The Journal's lawyers are swinging back hard. They filed a motion in late 2025 saying the article is true and that documents released by Congress actually back up their reporting. They argue that calling a note "bawdy" can't even be defamatory because Trump already has a "well-documented reputation for bawdiness" (their words, citing the Access Hollywood tape).
It’s a bold strategy: You can't say we ruined your reputation if your reputation was already like that.
Recent Developments as of January 17, 2026
Just yesterday, the tension between Trump and the WSJ spiked again. The Journal reported that Trump offered JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon the job of Federal Reserve Chair. Trump immediately took to social media to deny it, calling for the Journal to do better "fact checking" or watch their credibility "DIVE."
He even threatened to sue JPMorgan over "de-banking" him after Jan 6. It seems like the Trump lawsuit against WSJ is just the opening act for a much larger war against the financial and media establishment.
What This Means for the First Amendment
Legal scholars are worried. When you have a sitting president suing major news outlets for billions of dollars, it creates a "chilling effect."
Small newsrooms might look at the WSJ getting sued for $10 billion and decide that investigating the administration just isn't worth the risk. If a story can't be proved to a 100% certainty before publication, it might never see the light of day.
On the flip side, Trump's supporters see this as a long-overdue reckoning. For them, it’s about holding "Fake News" accountable for sloppy reporting and perceived bias.
Actionable Insights: How to Follow the Case
If you're trying to keep tabs on where this is going, don't just read the headlines. Here is how to actually track the Trump lawsuit against WSJ:
- Watch the Motion to Dismiss: If the judge denies the WSJ’s motion to dismiss, we are headed for discovery. That means Rupert Murdoch might actually have to sit for a deposition, which would be a massive media circus.
- Check the "Epstein Files": Attorney General Pam Bondi has been ordered to seek the unsealing of grand jury testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein. If that letter shows up in those files, the lawsuit is dead in the water.
- Follow the Anti-SLAPP Laws: Many states have "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation" laws designed to stop people from using the courts to silence critics. Whether Florida’s laws protect the WSJ in a federal case will be a key legal turning point.
Keep an eye on the docket for Trump v. Dow Jones & Co. This isn't just about a drawing; it's a test of whether the media can still report on the powerful without risking their entire existence.