What legal claims has Trump made in his lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal regarding the birthday card, and what is the current status of that case?
Executive summary
President Trump filed a federal defamation/libel lawsuit in July 2025 against The Wall Street Journal, its parent companies and journalists, alleging the paper falsely reported that an explicit birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein bore his handwriting and signature and seeking $10 billion in damages [1] [2] [3]. The Journal has moved to dismiss the suit, arguing First Amendment protections and the consistency of the article with Mr. Trump’s public reputation, and the case is actively litigated with competing motions pending in federal court [4] [5] [6].
1. The core legal claim: libel and defamation over an alleged Epstein birthday card
The complaint centers on a single legal theory—defamation (libel)—with plaintiffs saying the Journal published a false, “nonexistent” and maliciously fabricated birthday letter and drawing allegedly from Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, and that publication destroyed or damaged his reputation, warranting billions in damages [1] [3] [2]. Trump’s lawyers assert the article’s identification of him as the author was deliberate and malicious and that no authentic letter or drawing exists, framing the case as not merely an error but as intentional wrongdoing by the paper and its corporate owners [7] [3].
2. Who was sued and how much is sought
The suit names The Wall Street Journal, its publisher Dow Jones, parent company News Corp, executive figures including Rupert Murdoch and News Corp leaders, and the two reporters who bylined the story, and seeks large compensatory and punitive damages—widely reported as $10 billion in Trump’s filings though some outlets have noted different damage figures reported or alleged in related filings [1] [2] [6]. The complaint alleges the defendants authorized, published and repeated who-knows-what the plaintiff says is a fabricated account, making the companies and individual journalists jointly liable under the plaintiff’s theory [8] [9].
3. The Journal’s defenses and the legal battleground: First Amendment and truth defenses
The Wall Street Journal and its lawyers have pushed back with a motion to dismiss, arguing the article is protected speech, contesting that the reporting falls within matters of public concern and is consistent with the plaintiff’s public reputation and prior statements, and characterizing an attempt to hold the paper liable as an “affront to the First Amendment,” thus urging the court to throw out the suit [4] [6] [5]. The Journal has also noted the provenance of the card was described as “suspect” in some reporting but says that even if provenance were uncertain, reporting that a wealthy man sent a birthday card to another wealthy man in 2003 is not defamatory as a legal matter [10] [4].
4. Evidence developments that complicate the dispute: congressional release of the card
Complicating the plaintiff’s blanket denial, the House Oversight Committee released records including a copy of the birthday book page that the Journal described, and the committee’s posting of the image prompted renewed arguments from both sides—Trump’s team reiterating forgery claims while the Journal and other outlets point to the committee release as corroboration of the paper’s reporting [7] [11] [9]. Reporting indicates the copy released by Congress “looks exactly as described” by the Journal, but the plaintiff’s lawyers continue to contest authenticity and chain-of-custody issues rather than conceding the substantive description [11] [7] [3].
5. Current procedural status and what to expect next
As of the most recent public reporting, The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and News Corp filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Sept. 22, 2025, contending it fails to state a viable defamation claim and invoking First Amendment protections, and President Trump’s lawyers have responded by asking the federal judge in Florida to deny that motion and allow the $10 billion lawsuit to proceed [4] [5] [7]. The litigation remains active and unresolved in federal court; reporting shows motions and opposition briefs but no final adjudication on liability or damages yet, and both sides have signaled they will vigorously press their positions [5] [7] [6].