Trump’s End Game With The Wall Street Journal Defamation Lawsuit

by

Among the numerous queries swirling around President Trump’s defamation case against the publisher of The Wall Street Journal: Is he hopeful about prevailing in the courtroom, or was this lawsuit merely a strategic maneuver for political purposes? Furthermore, how does victory define him in this context?

The location chosen for the filing of the lawsuit, claiming Trump was defamed in a report about a 2003 birthday letter he wrote to Jeffrey Epstein, offers some hints. For instance, it was filed in a federal court in Florida instead of New York (where News Corp. is headquartered) or Washington D.C. (where Trump usually resides).

If he plans to bring the case before a jury and is granted permission in the Southern District of Florida since the publication is circulated within the state, it’s a shrewd move. Alejandro Brito, one of Trump’s lawyers who was also involved in his defamation lawsuit against ABC News, filed the lawsuit in the Miami division of the district. Here, jurors might be more inclined to scrutinize reporting from the publication compared to those based in liberal areas such as Manhattan or D.C.

It’s beneficial for a plaintiff suing for defamation to reside in certain states with strong conservative jurisdictions, as demonstrated by a Bay County, Florida jury awarding $5 million to a U.S. Navy veteran earlier this year following a CNN report that falsely accused him of illegally profiting from Afghans during the evacuation after the U.S. military withdrawal. Subsequently, he filed defamation lawsuits against The Associated Press and Puck News in the same state court.

For those who lean towards conspiracy theories, there’s another perspective: perhaps Trump is intentionally pushing for the lawsuit to be dismissed, or he doesn’t seem eager to bring it to its final conclusion before a jury. An article from The Journal was published on July 17. Trump filed a lawsuit the very next day, but Florida law mandates at least five days of written notice to a publication accused of defamation. This rule is in place to give newspapers ample time to issue a full and fair retraction, allowing them every chance to correct any potential errors.

In this version, I’ve aimed to maintain the original meaning while using simpler and more natural language for easier reading.

If News Corp requests it, the court might choose to dismiss the lawsuit prematurely, given the applicable law allows for such a move and even compensates for legal costs. In the defamation suit filed by conservative commentator Dan Bongino against The Daily Beast, the court highlighted that inadequate notification could lead to an irreversible dismissal labeled as “with prejudice,” which means it can’t be re-filed.

Additionally, the court case doesn’t appear to offer a compelling argument that President Trump was libeled through the publications of the Journal.

As a gamer putting on my legal analyst hat, I’d say: “Based on the article from the Wall Street Journal, it seems the president’s suit is stretching things a bit. The story never claimed Trump directly created or endorsed the content, but instead hinted at a signature resembling his and a sketch of a nude woman’s body. This is a common tactic by plaintiffs to accuse defendants of saying something they didn’t.” Christopher Beall, First Amendment lawyer at Recht Kornfeld LLP and former Colorado Deputy Secretary of State.

If Brito, Trump’s attorney, was instructed to file a lawsuit promptly, this might strengthen the idea that the legal action’s primary purpose is for political gain or public relations. In Trump’s perspective, does it make a difference if he loses the case as long as he creates a commotion and challenges the Journal‘s alleged inaccurate reporting?

As a gamer, I’d rather not prolong the discovery process, as it would keep my name in the spotlight alongside Epstein’s in the headlines. Swearing an oath for questioning doesn’t seem likely. Six months after filing a lawsuit against Michael Cohen back in 2023, I decided to drop that case, which was under the same judge presiding over my lawsuit against the newspaper, just before a crucial deposition.

A different possibility not exclusive to any other theory is that Trump may be aiming to secure advantages from News Corp. and The Journal by negotiating a settlement, regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the case. This approach has been used before – ABC News settled a lawsuit initiated by Trump over their reporting for $15 million, as did CBS for $16 million, even though many believed the lawsuits were baseless. It’s essential to acknowledge that Trump has multiple routes to success besides a jury trial resulting in a finding of defamation against him.

As a devoted follower, I can’t help but notice that Rupert Murdoch may play a pivotal role in the legal battle between Trump and the Journal. This media magnate harbors aspirations that stretch beyond News Corp. However, should he find himself at odds with Trump, it could potentially complicate his intentions to pass his empire onto his preferred heir, Lachlan Murdoch, who shares his conservative views for maintaining Fox as a powerful media force. There’s also murmurings about the possible consequences of a Fox sale, which might face obstacles from regulatory bodies, some of whom may be influenced by Trump’s orders, such as the FCC’s intervention in Paramount’s proposed merger with Skydance.

In simpler terms, while it’s widely discussed that Trump encounters a tough fight to establish “actual malice,” which means proving the publisher knew the information was false or didn’t care about its truth, it’s more probable that Trump doesn’t believe the lawsuit will progress far enough in court for this issue to arise.

Read More

2025-07-23 03:54