Donald Trump’s defamation case against The Wall Street Journal has been dismissed permanently, sharpening a familiar clash between his claim that the paper published a false story and the court’s conclusion that his complaint did not show the legally required level of fault.

US District Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed the $10 billion lawsuit with prejudice, meaning Trump cannot file the same claim again in the trial court. The case arose from the Journal’s report on an alleged 2003 birthday-book letter to Jeffrey Epstein bearing Trump’s name; Trump has denied writing or signing it.

Gayles found that Trump had not adequately alleged “actual malice” — that the defendants knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it was true. The judge described the effort to challenge the Journal’s reporting as “grasping at straws” and said the complaint sought to “manufacture flaws” in what he characterized as a detailed investigation.¹

The ruling also rejected the argument that Trump’s denial should have prevented publication. Gayles said accepting that view would conflict with First Amendment protections, because a public figure’s denial cannot by itself bar journalists from reporting contradictory information. The Journal’s article, he noted, informed readers that Trump called the letter a fake and denied authoring it.¹

Trump’s side continues to frame the dispute differently: the lawsuit alleged that the newspaper and its reporters knowingly or recklessly published false and damaging claims. A spokesperson for his legal team said the president intends to appeal and would continue pursuing those he says mislead the public with “Fake News and smears.”²

Dow Jones, the Journal’s owner, welcomed the decision. The practical disagreement now is narrower than the original dispute over the letter: the court has ruled that Trump’s pleading did not clear the constitutional standard for a public figure’s libel claim, while his lawyers plan to ask an appeals court to revisit that conclusion.