In yet another clash between President Donald Trump and the free press, a federal judge appointed by Barack Obama will preside over Trump’s explosive $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal. The case centers around an eyebrow-raising report that Trump allegedly penned a sexually charged letter to notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The story, published earlier this month, described a 2003 birthday note supposedly sent by Trump to Epstein. The note allegedly featured a nude drawing with the president’s name scribbled across it like pubic hair, along with the message:
“We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? … Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump has dismissed the story as a total fabrication and responded with a scorched-earth lawsuit targeting not only The Wall Street Journal, but also its parent company Dow Jones, the Murdoch-run News Corp, and reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo.
But the president’s legal fight just hit a speed bump.
The case was randomly assigned to U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, a history-making judicial appointee of President Obama. Gayles became the first openly gay Black man to sit on a federal bench when he was confirmed in 2014. Based in Miami, Gayles now holds the gavel in one of the most politically charged defamation cases of Trump’s presidency.
Trump allies immediately seized on the judge’s background.
“It’s not hard to see what’s going on here,” said a senior Trump campaign official, speaking anonymously. “We’ve got a Democrat-appointed judge, and this is a case that threatens one of the Left’s media darlings. Fair trial? We’ll see.”
The Journal’s story did not include a copy of the alleged letter or any image of the artwork. That omission is now central to Trump’s legal argument. In the court filing, his lawyers claimed the article was designed to smear the president with fabricated evidence—without providing any actual proof.
“There is no such letter. No drawing. No signature. No link,” reads the complaint.
“They manufactured a salacious story and then conveniently forgot to attach the evidence.”
Dow Jones, however, is standing firm. A spokesperson said:
“We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting and will defend our journalists vigorously.”
The Epstein scandal continues to cast a shadow over figures on both sides of the political aisle—but especially Trump, who has long tried to distance himself from the convicted sex trafficker. Despite photos and social ties from the early 2000s, Trump has insisted he cut off Epstein long before his 2008 conviction.
Yet public frustration has grown among parts of Trump’s own base, particularly after he backed away from promises to release all Epstein-related files.
“He said he’d drain the swamp,” said conservative radio host Brad Yates. “But instead he’s trying to shut down media stories that he should be confronting head-on. If he didn’t write it, prove it—and let the rest come out.”
Trump’s lawsuit against The Journal is part of a wider legal war the president is waging against legacy outlets.
Just this month, Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million over a CBS interview with Kamala Harris that Trump claimed misrepresented his views on race and policing. And ABC News quietly paid out $15 million to Trump’s presidential library after anchor George Stephanopoulos incorrectly stated that Trump had been found civilly liable for rape in the E. Jean Carroll case. In truth, the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation.
“I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his ‘pile of garbage’ newspaper,” Trump posted last week on Truth Social. “That will be an interesting experience!!!”
Legal experts say Trump’s chances of success may hinge on whether the judge allows the case to proceed to discovery—something that could force The Journal to show their sources and possibly expose internal communications.
“This is not just about whether the letter is real,” said media law professor Valerie Kent of Georgetown University. “It’s about whether the Journal acted with actual malice. That’s a high bar—but not impossible when it comes to stories this outrageous.”
With Judge Gayles now presiding, the stage is set for a high-stakes showdown: a Democratic-appointed judge, a sitting Republican president, and a media empire that may soon find itself defending what could be one of the most sensational press stories of the decade.
And at the center of it all—Jeffrey Epstein, a name that refuses to disappear.
Discover more from Next Gen News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As usual Trump needs to get ready for another appeal as our Justice System is infiltrated with Politics than Truth ???
David.
>
What’s the real surprise about that? I can already tell you what the outcome is gonna be before it ever starts. You got a corrupt Marxist judging error and Trump loses. Not because he’s wrong, because Rupert Murdoch has really deep pockets and the judge is corrupt and in the in Murdoch‘s pocket
Any bets Obama is all over this? Follow the money. How stupid does the judges think Americans are? Democrats knew what they were doing by getting certain people in certain areas. They are all in deep and think they can come out smelling like roses. Your rose bush has just died and it’s in so deep it will never bloom again. Corruption runs deeper and deeper but it can’t live forever with truth being told and having receipts to prove it. Unlike democrats, republicans bring receipts for proof. Democrats just falsify everything to see if it sticks. No receipts no proof democrats. I will love to see all these corrupt people in orange once and for all. I am expected to obey the laws yet democrats seem to be above it. Not any more. Blaming others for what you did is wrong period. Time to be held accountable and I am all in for it. If I did anything remotely like these democrats have gotten by with for decades I will never see the light of day again. You democrats forget about what harm you have caused and think it’s ok. No. Do the crime do the time. I am sick to my stomach knowing until 2016 I was voting democrat. Research on President Trump that I did was part of my changing party. The other was since seeing President Trump on different daytime shows I knew he would make a great president over 30 years ago. He’s a business man not a swamp creature. I always knew if he ran I would vote for him in a heartbeat. When democrats started lying and twisting his words I did a lot of research on President Trump and then all of a sudden the research I had found before was gone and false info put in its place. I tried warning others about what was really being done to him and many thanked me. But as long as corruption in swamp exists our America will never be again. Democrats want communism full blown so Obama can rein as king for as long as he lives. Him and others have made deals with the devil and all is showing up on them. Treason should be one word we need to see with the corruption in swamp. Reason God spared President Trump was to protect Americans and America from within. Democrats you are a losing cause and only way any democrats win any elections for many years to come is by the same way they have for decades. Rigging the elections. The devil lives in Obama. If you can’t get your eyes opened to the rot in our government maybe you have been to brainwashed already.
YOUR LEADER ALREADY WEARS ORANGE. ON A DAILY BASIS, always did have bad taste.
Yor leader wore dirty diapers.
A money hungry man he is! My, My, My!!!