Trump refiles $10bn defamation suit against WSJ over Epstein report

President Donald Trump has filed an amended defamation complaint in federal court in Miami seeking at least $10 billion in damages from The Wall Street Journal and related entities over a report tying him to material in a 2003 Jeffrey Epstein birthday book. The suit contends the Journal published false and damaging statements that harmed the president's reputation.

The amended complaint names Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, News Corp and News Corp CEO Robert Thomson, as well as reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo, alleging the defendants published the story despite doubts about its accuracy. U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles previously dismissed Trump's first complaint in April for failing to plausibly allege the legal standard known as "actual malice," while granting leave to amend.

Market participants are monitoring potential reputational and financial effects on News Corporation and related assets, since high-profile media litigation can trigger share price moves and increased volatility. Financial news services showed modest intraday moves in News Corporation shares following the filing, reflecting investor sensitivity to litigation risk for major media owners.

The case sits within a broader pattern of legal actions the president has pursued against news organizations, and raises recurring First Amendment and defamation law tensions in the United States. Legal experts note that the "actual malice" threshold for public figures requires evidence that publishers knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, which is a challenging standard to meet at early pleading stages.

Lawyers and market watchers say the litigation could proceed through protracted discovery if the amended complaint survives initial motions to dismiss, potentially producing internal documents and testimony that influence public perception and investor assessments. Absent clear new factual allegations meeting the actual malice test, however, defendants are likely to press for dismissal; the ultimate impact will depend on legal rulings and any material disclosures that emerge during the case.