Judge Gayles protects the press from Donald Trump's lawsuit

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · November 1, 2026

Judge Gayles dismissed Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit with prejudice, rightly holding that a public figure cannot block investigative reporting simply by issuing a blanket denial.

Procedure is where power actually lives

When a plaintiff asks a court for ten billion dollars because a newspaper printed a story he dislikes, the first question a lawyer asks is not whether the story stung. The first question is whether the machinery of the law permits the claim to cross the threshold. On Saturday, October 31, 2026, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles answered that question in Miami federal court. He answered it with the finality of a closed door. He dismissed with prejudice the amended defamation lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal. As NBC News, CNBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, SBS News, and the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported, the court held that the plaintiff failed to plead the essential element of actual malice.

The litigation concerned an article by Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo reporting on a birthday book assembled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The book contained a card featuring a typewritten note and a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman, with the signature "Donald" placed below the waist to mimic pubic hair. The note concluded with the words, "Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret." Donald Trump denied involvement with the card and alleged the newspaper fabricated the note. But as Judge Gayles observed in his ruling, grasping at straws and attempting to manufacture flaws with an investigative report does not substitute for the heavy burden the law demands.

The rule governing this dispute is the bedrock standard established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That landmark decision mandates that a public figure prove actual malice—defined as knowledge that a statement was false or reckless disregard for its truth—to prevail in a defamation action. Judge Gayles found the amended suit fell woefully short of this standard. The court determined that The Wall Street Journal conducted a thoughtful and detailed investigation, which included contacting Ghislaine Maxwell and reviewing materials released by the House Oversight Committee and Epstein’s estate. To hold otherwise, the court reasoned, would turn the First Amendment on its head. As Judge Gayles wrote, "Were that the law, any time a public figure or his team denies an accusation, journalists would be immediately blocked from publishing negative or contradictory press."

A rule that only works for your side is not a rule

We have traveled this road before. The scenery does not improve upon a second viewing. In Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network, we watched a major media organization face a multibillion-dollar reckoning over the actual malice standard. It broadcast claims about election machinery that its own internal communications showed its hosts doubted. We saw it again in Smartmatic, and in Bollea v. Gawker, where a high-profile figure sought damages over the publication of sexually explicit content. In Trump v. E. Jean Carroll, courts repeatedly dismissed counter-claims for defamation because the plaintiff failed to meet the requisite legal standard of actual malice.

The temptation in every one of these cases is to cheer or jeer depending on who holds the portfolio of grievances that week. That is the trap for the unwary citizen and the bad lawyer alike. If a public figure could block unfavorable reporting simply by issuing a blanket denial, the First Amendment would become a parchment barrier, serviceable only when your friends hold the levers of power and lethal the moment they step down. Judge Gayles understood this structural necessity. He noted that allowing a public figure to suppress reporting based on a denial of authenticity runs afoul of the constitutional protections guarding freedom of speech and the press.

The plaintiff’s legal team insisted that the newspaper failed to show how reporters received and verified the letter, and pointed to a phone call where Rupert Murdoch allegedly told Trump "I will handle it." None of these assertions meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). A newspaper is not required to halt its presses because the subject of an investigative report objects to the findings. The Wall Street Journal's attorneys rightly defined actual malice as occurring when the false statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. A denial is not evidence of reckless disregard. It is merely a denial.

The machinery of justice remains larger than the grievances within it

The dismissal with prejudice issued by Judge Gayles means Donald Trump cannot file another amended version of the same suit in that district court. It closes a chapter on a $10 billion complaint. The plaintiff maintains active defamation litigation against other outlets, including a suit against the BBC where a federal judge ordered him to sit for a deposition, and a case against The New York Times. The legal ground beneath these sprawling claims is steadily eroding. Another parallel suit against Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register was likewise dismissed with prejudice.

The public square is noisy, and politicians of every stripe will continue to use the courts as an extension of their campaign collateral. Congressional committees continue to grapple with the fallout of documents released under laws requiring the Department of Justice to publish the Epstein files. But a courtroom is not a television studio, and a defamation complaint is not a press release. It is a precise instrument governed by rules that do not bend to accommodate the political calendar or the personal offense of the powerful.

When a court applies the actual malice standard with fidelity, it protects not just the institutional press, but every citizen who might one day need to speak uncomfortable truths about the powerful without asking permission first. The Wall Street Journal did its job. The plaintiff failed to meet his burden under the law. The district court did the only thing a court of law could do under the Constitution. We are left with a quiet, unglamorous judicial outcome—which is precisely how a republic keeps its balance.

Judge Gayles protects the press from Donald Trump's lawsuit

Procedure is where power actually lives

A rule that only works for your side is not a rule

The machinery of justice remains larger than the grievances within it

Sources