Trump Sues Rupert Murdoch and WSJ Over Epstein Birthday Letter — What’s at Stake?

Donald Trump Sues Rupert Murdoch and Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Birthday Letter Story — What’s Next?

In a dramatic legal move on Friday, former President Donald Trump launched a massive defamation lawsuit against media mogul Rupert Murdoch and key figures at The Wall Street Journal. The suit stems from a recent article that claimed Trump wrote a "bawdy" birthday letter to the late Jeffrey Epstein back in 2003 — a claim Trump outright denies.

What’s this lawsuit all about?

The lawsuit, which demands at least $10 billion in damages, targets Murdoch, who controls Dow Jones and News Corp., as well as Wall Street Journal CEO Robert Thomson and reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo, who wrote the contentious story. The article alleges Trump penned a suggestive note to Epstein on his 50th birthday, something Trump has vehemently denied.

This legal battle isn't just about money or reputation—it has the potential to open the floodgates on uncovering more about Trump's relationship with Epstein, which has always been under a cloud of suspicion.

Why does this matter?

Here’s the thing: the discovery phase in a lawsuit can be like opening Pandora’s box. If the case proceeds, lawyers on both sides can demand documents, emails, and testimonies that might reveal previously unknown details about Trump’s ties to Epstein. This means we could see far more scrutiny into the nature and depth of their connection.

Chris Mattei, a former federal prosecutor who represented families from the Sandy Hook tragedy in a defamation case, weighed in on the situation. He outlined three possible paths for the lawsuit:

1. The defendants (Murdoch, WSJ, and others) might try to dismiss the case quickly, limiting discovery.

2. They could bypass dismissal and head straight into open discovery, exchanging extensive evidence.

3. Or, both parties might settle out of court to avoid the messy public drama.

What’s at stake in discovery?

Damon Dunn, a First Amendment and media law expert, explained that for Trump to win this defamation case at trial, he’d have to prove three critical things:

• The story was false.

• It damaged his reputation.

• And it was published with “actual malice” — meaning the WSJ either knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

That “actual malice” standard is notoriously difficult to meet. Dunn pointed out something crucial:

"Is it really defamatory that one wealthy person sent a birthday card to another in 2003, before Epstein’s crimes were public knowledge?”

This highlights an important angle. The letter allegedly dates back to 2003, long before Epstein’s sex trafficking crimes came to light. Could a birthday greeting—even a suggestive one—be considered defamatory given the context?

The defendants' strategy

According to Dunn, the Journal might focus their defense on showing there was no actual malice in publishing the story, even if the letter’s authorship is questioned. This approach mirrors previous cases, like when actor Justin Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times was dismissed due to insufficient proof of malice.

However, Mattei believes The Wall Street Journal could push for "reciprocal discovery." That means if Trump wants to prove the letter wasn’t his, the WSJ could demand documents or testimony from him about his relationship with Epstein. They’d want to know how well Trump knew Epstein and whether there’s evidence supporting or refuting the claims made in the article.

“If Trump's defense is that the story is false, then any evidence about his connection with Epstein becomes relevant,” Mattei said. “An aggressive WSJ might seek wide-ranging information on their relationship.”

But there’s a catch. Dunn noted that while reciprocal discovery is possible, it could get very costly and might drag the case out longer than either side wants. Plus, how relevant Trump's broader relationship with Epstein will be is up for debate — and the judge will have to weigh in.

The legal experts’ take: Is this lawsuit strong?

Both Mattei and Dunn seem skeptical about Trump’s chances here. Mattei called the suit “a power play” by Trump, testing how much influence he can exert over the media landscape.

This kind of high-stakes defamation case, especially involving public figures, is rarely straightforward. Judges will spend weeks or months just deciding procedural matters—like whether the WSJ can get the case tossed or move forward to discovery.

Mattei estimated this early phase could stretch out over six months, meaning we’re in for a drawn-out legal saga with plenty of twists.

Trump’s complicated history with Jeffrey Epstein

To understand why this lawsuit is so explosive, you need to know the background between Trump and Epstein. Their relationship dates back decades, with Trump admitting they were friends for over 15 years, starting in the 1980s. They were often spotted together at high-profile parties and social gatherings.

Back in 2002, Trump even called Epstein a “terrific guy” in an interview with New York Magazine. But by 2004, things reportedly soured. Trump told The New York Times in 2019 that they had a “falling out” over a real estate deal and that he was no longer a fan.

Public records related to Epstein's sex trafficking charges haven't implicated Trump directly. His name, and those of some family members, appeared in Epstein’s contact books. Trump was also logged as a passenger on Epstein’s private jets. But nothing has officially linked Trump to Epstein’s criminal activities.

What about the Epstein files?

During his 2020 reelection campaign, Trump promised to release all government documents related to Epstein’s case. But the Justice Department dashed those hopes when it announced in July 2025 it wouldn’t release more “Epstein Files.”

Trump, however, has continued pushing for transparency. Over the weekend, he posted on his platform Truth Social, reiterating his request for the Justice Department to release all grand jury testimony about Epstein—pending court approval, of course.

His post read:

“With that being said, and even if the Court gave its full and unwavering approval, nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more.”

Why is this lawsuit bigger than just a letter?

What’s fascinating here isn’t just the lawsuit itself, but what it could reveal about the tangled web between Trump, Epstein, and the media. If the case goes through discovery, expect intense legal battles over documents, witnesses, and possibly explosive new information.

For Trump, this isn’t just a fight over a story — it’s about protecting his legacy, fighting perceived media bias, and controlling the narrative around one of the most controversial figures tied to his past.

For the Wall Street Journal and Murdoch, it’s about defending journalistic integrity and showing they won’t be bullied by lawsuits aimed at silencing them.

What to watch for next

• Motion to dismiss: The WSJ and Murdoch might ask the court to throw the case out quickly.

• Discovery battles: If the case moves forward, both sides will dig into each other’s documents and testimonies.

• Possible settlement: A deal could happen anytime to avoid prolonged legal warfare.

• Media fallout: No matter the outcome, this lawsuit will keep the spotlight on Trump-Epstein ties.

In short, this lawsuit is shaping up to be a high-profile media and legal showdown with implications that stretch far beyond a birthday letter. It’s a perfect storm of politics, power, and the relentless pursuit of truth — or at least what each side claims is the truth.

Keep an eye on this one — it’s just getting started.