Donald Trump has never shied away from a fight. In fact, it’s practically his brand. But in launching a $10 billion libel lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, and two Wall Street Journal reporters over a birthday card allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump may have walked into a legal minefield of his own making.
The lawsuit centers around a Journal story detailing a bizarre 2003 birthday card supposedly authored by Trump to Epstein. According to the article, the note contained several typed lines framed by the outline of a naked woman, hand-drawn in thick marker. The letter reportedly included a third-person conversation between “Trump” and Epstein, with enigmatic phrases such as “enigmas never age” and the cryptic sign-off: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump has vehemently denied authorship of the card. In a furious social media post, he declared: “These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures.” He further asserted the note was a forgery fabricated by “unnamed Democrats,” and called the Journal a “useless rag,” promising “a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved.”
For Murdoch, 93, and Trump, 78, this isn’t their first confrontation. The media mogul’s outlets — most prominently Fox News and the Journal — were skeptical of Trump during the 2016 primaries before eventually aiding his path to the presidency. Their relationship has since oscillated between strategic alliance and mutual contempt. But this lawsuit could mark a definitive rupture.
The legal hurdles Trump faces are towering. The landmark Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) still stands — despite Justice Clarence Thomas’s wish to revisit it. Under Sullivan, public figures suing for libel must prove “actual malice” — that the publisher knowingly printed falsehoods or acted in reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a near-impossible standard to meet when the defendant is The Wall Street Journal, not a tabloid like the National Enquirer.
Moreover, reports suggest the card came from Department of Justice archives. If so, the Journal’s sourcing may have been both legitimate and well-documented. Dow Jones has vowed to “vigorously defend” its reporting, stating, “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our journalism.”
If Trump hoped to intimidate Murdoch into silence or submission, he may have miscalculated. Libel suits, historically, are double-edged swords — especially for the plaintiff. They often invite forensic dissection of the very allegations the plaintiff seeks to bury. Legal legend Roy Cohn, Trump’s onetime mentor, famously advised clients: “Never sue for libel.” The reasons are obvious. Oscar Wilde, Alger Hiss, Gen. William Westmoreland, and Ariel Sharon all sued — and saw their reputations battered further. Some even ended up in prison.
Trump’s reputation is already uniquely impervious to additional tarnish. A New York jury found him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll. He’s been convicted of 34 felony counts related to hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. His boasts about women and his own sexuality — including in the notorious Access Hollywood tape — are publicly etched in American memory.
So what’s the damage here, really?
Legal analysts suspect Trump’s motivations may have more to do with uncovering sources through discovery than restoring his name. His lawyers have already requested that Murdoch be deposed quickly, citing his advanced age and reported health concerns. “I hope Rupert and his ‘friends’ are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies,” Trump posted. That may sound like bravado, but it betrays an ulterior aim: flushing out who leaked the card and what else they may know.
But discovery cuts both ways. Murdoch’s attorneys will be free to interrogate the origins and nature of Trump’s long, checkered relationship with Epstein — one that spanned at least 15 years. How close were they? Did Trump know about Epstein’s illegal activities? Did he ever participate, enable, or turn a blind eye? Why did their relationship allegedly sour in 2004 over a Palm Beach mansion? Was that really the end?
Those depositions may expose far more than Trump bargained for — not just about his ties to Epstein, but about his broader conduct and associations.
Trump has filed and settled media lawsuits before. He reportedly reached a $15 million agreement with ABC after George Stephanopoulos mistakenly said he had been “convicted of rape.” A recent $16 million CBS settlement over a 60 Minutes segment seemed more about easing Paramount’s merger path than Trump’s legal merit. But those cases were relatively tame compared to what this Journal suit could unleash.
Murdoch’s legal team is not likely to blink. While The Wall Street Journal ran a curious follow-up story on Epstein’s “Birthday Book” that included letters from Bill Clinton and billionaire Leon Black, it offered little new insight — possibly a strategic nod or an effort to show editorial balance. But sources close to the matter insist Murdoch has no intention of settling.
And perhaps he shouldn’t. Trump is often at his most reckless when wounded. Peggy Noonan aptly observed that “he fights even when he will hurt himself, because the fight is all.” But in this case, the fight may well invite ruin. Trump could inadvertently open the floodgates to evidence, testimony, and revelations far more damaging than a birthday card.
He may soon learn what every good trial lawyer knows: In libel litigation, the courtroom is often the last place you want your secrets to surface.
