A prominent financial newspaper has filed a motion requesting that a federal judge dismiss President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit for the second time, arguing that the amended complaint still fails to meet legal standards for proving actual malice.
The lawsuit centers on an article published last year about a letter allegedly featuring inappropriate content that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein received for his 50th birthday. The letter reportedly contained an image of a naked woman and what appeared to be Trump’s signature positioned in a suggestive manner. Trump has consistently maintained that the letter, which was later released by congressional Democrats, is not authentic.
In a 22-page filing submitted Wednesday in Miami federal court, the publication’s legal team argued that their reporters conducted proper investigative journalism and included Trump’s denial of creating the letter in their original article. The newspaper emphasized that their reporting did not accuse the president of any criminal activity connected to Epstein.
The defendants in the case include the newspaper’s parent company, its founder Rupert Murdoch, CEO Robert Thomson, and the article’s authors, Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo. According to the motion, the publication contacted Trump, Justice Department officials, and the FBI for comment before publishing the story. Trump provided his denial, the Justice Department did not respond, and the FBI declined to comment.
U.S. District Court Judge Darrin P. Gayles, appointed by Barack Obama, initially dismissed the lawsuit in April, ruling that Trump had not demonstrated that the publication acted with actual malice, which is a necessary element in defamation cases involving public figures. The judge noted that the complaint showed the opposite, confirming that defendants attempted to investigate the story thoroughly.
Following the initial dismissal, Judge Gayles allowed Trump to file an amended complaint, which he submitted last month. The revised filing criticized the publication’s signature analysis in a follow-up article and accused the reporters of ignoring statements from both Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted Epstein associate who reportedly could not recall whether Trump contributed to the birthday book containing the disputed letter.
In their latest motion to dismiss, the newspaper’s legal team countered these allegations by pointing to specific paragraphs in the original article that detailed Trump’s denials and noted Maxwell’s lack of response to requests for comment. They argue that the amended complaint merely repackages previously rejected arguments about insufficient investigation, emphasizing that failure to investigate does not constitute actual malice under the law.
The publication is now seeking attorney fees and costs under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides penalties for those who file meritless lawsuits intended to intimidate parties exercising free speech rights.
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team responded to the filing by stating that the president has filed a substantial lawsuit and will continue pursuing accountability against those who allegedly mislead the American public with false information.
This case represents one of multiple legal actions Trump has initiated against media organizations in recent years. He has also filed lawsuits against other major news outlets, with one case being dismissed earlier this year while another remains pending.
The newspaper is represented by George LeMieux of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, while Trump’s legal representation comes from attorney Alejandro Brito. The court’s decision on this second motion to dismiss could have significant implications for the broader landscape of defamation litigation involving public figures and news organizations.
Leave a Reply