Judge dismisses Trump’s defamation suit against Wall Street Journal over Epstein birthday letter

PBS NewsHour leads on the legal outcome and specifies the judge’s determination that Trump failed to show “actual malice.”

NBC News highlights the scale of the claim ($10 billion) and frames the case around the revised defamation suit and the alleged birthday card story.

CNBC emphasizes the procedural impact of “with prejudice” and foregrounds that Trump plans to appeal after the dismissal.

CBS focuses on the judge’s detailed reasoning, including that Trump did not meet the “actual malice” standard, while noting the lengthy ruling.

Stuff.co.nz leads with the dismissal “with prejudice” and ties the dispute to the Wall Street Journal reporting about Trump’s links to Epstein.

The Independent’s headline mirrors the dismissal framing around Trump’s $10bn lawsuit but provides no additional summary details in the supplied text.

The West Australian stresses the allegation’s context by calling Epstein a “pedophile” and leads with the dismissal of the lawsuit.

PerthNow similarly foregrounds the claim that the case concerns Trump’s ties to Epstein and that the lawsuit was dismissed.

Belfast Telegraph presents the story as a rejection of Trump’s lawsuit but lacks detail in the supplied summary.

IrishExaminer.com leads with the dismissal and names the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch in connection with the Epstein birthday letter/card report.

The Guardian leads with the legal effect of “with prejudice,” and also adds context that an earlier April dismissal had allowed revisions.

The South China Morning Post emphasizes the Miami judge’s “actual malice” reasoning and includes language about the lawsuit attempting to manufacture flaws.

Bloomberg leads with the financial headline, stressing that the judge dismissed Trump’s renewed $10 billion defamation suit as another setback in his broader press legal battles.

Reason frames the ruling around pleading standards, emphasizing the court’s conclusion that Trump did not allege facts showing the WSJ likely knew the statements were false.

The New York Times foregrounds the “actual malice” requirement and the context that this was Trump’s second attempt, centering the lawsuit’s focus on the Epstein birthday-note reporting.

Deadline emphasises the repeat nature of the dismissal, citing Judge Darrin P. Gayles and underscoring that the complaint fell short of pleading actual malice.

The Independent highlights the finality by calling it a permanent throwout, focusing on Trump’s failure to establish the WSJ acted with actual malice in relation to the Epstein birthday story.

The Winnipeg Free Press leads with the final outcome (“dismissed with prejudice”) and foregrounds the alleged trigger by naming the Epstein birthday letter as the dispute’s focus.

Investing.com spotlights the court’s action in a straightforward headline, emphasizing the judge dismissing Trump’s Wall Street Journal lawsuit and treating it as a clear legal development.