According to Bloomberg, Trump’s team submitted an amended complaint on May 27 in a federal court in Florida. This comes after U.S. District Judge Darren Gales dismissed the original complaint in April, prompting Trump’s team to address the deficiencies identified by the court. In defamation cases involving public figures, “actual malice” refers to a media outlet knowing that the information was false or disregarding its potential falsity.
The dispute originated from a July article by the WSJ, which claimed that Trump sent Epstein an obscene birthday letter in 2003. The letter was described as typed and featuring a drawing of a naked woman, with Trump’s signature placed at the bottom. Trump has consistently denied the authenticity of the document.
In the amended complaint, Trump’s team targets two WSJ reporters, the publisher Dow Jones, its parent company News Corp, and News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch. They allege that these individuals either knew the information was false or published the article without verifying its accuracy. Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, stated, “The defendants recklessly ignored whether the defamatory statements were true at the time of publication or intentionally avoided discovering the truth.”
The amended complaint raises significant concerns about the WSJ's reporting process. It questions why the letter was written in the third person, why it was typed, who authored it, and how the publication obtained it. The absence of the letter's image in the article is also cited as evidence of actual malice.
Judge Gales previously ruled that Trump’s arguments did not come close to meeting the standard for actual malice. The court noted that the WSJ had sought comment from Trump’s team and relevant officials before publishing the article. However, the court did not determine whether the content constituted defamation or if Trump actually wrote the letter in question.
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team described the amended complaint as a “strong legal response.” He added, “The president will continue to hold accountable those who mislead the American people with fake news and defamation.”
The key issue in this case is whether Trump’s team can prove that the WSJ acted with intent or reckless disregard beyond a mere reporting error. If the court finds that the amended complaint still fails to meet the actual malice standard, the legal battle could stall once again at an early stage.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.