Left inset: Jeffrey Epstein (New York State Sex Offender Registry via AP, File). Right inset: President Donald Trump walks from Marine One after arriving on the South Lawn of the White House, Tuesday, July 15, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File). Main: The Wall Street Journal newspaper is seen at the White House in Washington on July 19, 2025. President Donald Trump sued Rupert Murdoch for libel after his Wall Street Journal published an article saying Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein a “bawdy” letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday. Photo by Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Sipa USA (Sipa via AP Images).
After threatening to sue the Wall Street Journal over a report stating Donald Trump crafted a “bawdy” 50th birthday card for Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, Trump rapidly followed with a $20 billion defamation lawsuit and sought an expedited deposition of Rupert Murdoch. Nevertheless, his legal team indicated the case will now pause for a time.
Mid-July buzzed with speculation about a perceived revealing WSJ piece regarding Trump’s association with Epstein. This connection included socializing at Mar-a-Lago in the 1990s and, notably, Trump’s 2002 remarks lauding Epstein as a “terrific guy” interested in “beautiful women” on the “younger side,” predating Epstein’s 2005 investigation in Palm Beach for sexual misconduct involving young girls.
Their alleged fallout remains a topic of conflicting narratives, amidst the scrutiny facing the DOJ’s approach to the Epstein case and its subsequent extensive questioning of Ghislaine Maxwell, who is convicted and incarcerated for sex trafficking.
WSJ’s focus was on a card made for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003, purportedly featuring a sketch of a nude woman with Trump’s autograph positioned “below her waist,” and text including “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
The article mentioned that numerous affluent and influential individuals, including former President Bill Clinton and billionaire Leon Black, participated in the birthday album for Epstein, organized by Maxwell.
Two days before the story emerged, Trump on July 15 threatened to sue. After it was published, Trump confirmed he tried to convince Murdoch to squash the article under threat of suit.
“The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,” Trump wrote in part on Truth Social on the night of July 17. “Mr. Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but, obviously, did not have the power to do so. The Editor of The Wall Street Journal, Emma Tucker, was told directly by Karoline Leavitt, and by President Trump, that the letter was a FAKE, but Emma Tucker didn’t want to hear that. Instead, they are going with a false, malicious, and defamatory story anyway. President Trump will be suing The Wall Street Journal, NewsCorp, and Mr. Murdoch, shortly.”
Trump attorney Alejandro Brito filed the $20 billion defamation complaint the very next day in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Dow Jones and Company, Inc., NewsCorp, the Wall Street Journal, its defendant reporters Joseph Palazzolo and Khadeeja Safdar, NewsCorp CEO Robert Thomson and Murdoch.
In the complaint, Trump claimed the defendants forged ahead on a defamatory mission fueled by the goal of maximum virality, even though they were “put […] on notice that the letter was fake and nonexistent.”
“Defendants falsely and maliciously stated that President Trump supposedly authored, drew, and signed a letter wishing Epstein a happy fiftieth birthday,” the complaint said. “Defendants elaborated on their false, defamatory, unsubstantiated, and disparaging claims against President Trump by claiming that he drew an outline of a naked woman, drew breasts on her, and signed his name below her waist ‘mimicking pubic hair.'”
“Next, Defendants further maligned President Trump by wrongly and ludicrously contending that inside of the naked woman that he allegedly drew lies a ‘typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person,'” the lawsuit went on.
The case was assigned the same day to U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, a Barack Obama appointee. On July 23, five days later, the judge set Sept. 22 as the due date for the various defendants to answer Trump’s complaint, opening the door to a period of relative inactivity on the docket.
But on July 28, Trump doubled down on his already aggressive posture in the case by demanding that Murdoch be forced to sit for a deposition “within fifteen days.” The motion emphasized that the billionaire media mogul is 94 years old and might not be available for “in-person testimony at trial,” considering he had experienced “multiple health issues” and “scares” in the last five years.
For that reason, Brito asserted, an “expedited” deposition under oath would be the appropriate course of action.
“[T]here is good cause to expedite Murdoch’s deposition, and the Court should exercise its discretion to authorize the same,” said the bid for fast-tracked discovery, calling the motion of “vital importance” to the “administration of justice.”
On Monday, however, Trump’s legal team reversed course on the expedited Murdoch deposition, pursuant to a joint stipulation and “Abatement Agreement” with the defendants that appears to significantly kick the proverbial can down the road.
As noted, the WSJ defendants have until Sept. 22 to file their answer, which, the stipulation suggests, will come in the form of a motion to dismiss. But the stipulation states Trump and Murdoch “agree not to engage in discovery” until after the motion to dismiss is “adjudicated.” If the defendants take all of their allowed time to file, an ensuing ruling on a motion to dismiss would take even longer — meaning it may be closer to months, not weeks, until there will be major movement in the case.
There are some caveats regarding limited discovery between now and then, however. One is that “during the pendency of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and before it is adjudicated, the Parties shall conduct the Rule 26(f) conference and exchange Initial Disclosures,” referring to the federal rule that requires litigants to discuss a discovery plan.
“If any of the Parties believe that discovery is required during this timeframe, notwithstanding their agreement reflected in this paragraph, a joint motion would be required to seek that discovery,” the filing said.
The second caveat relates to Murdoch’s health. The stipulation states that Murdoch will be deposed in person “no later” than 30 days after the denial of a motion to dismiss — unless there is an intervening “material change in his health,” which Murdoch is required to reveal. In the event that Murdoch does not comply, he’ll face an expedited deposition, the filing said:
Within three (3) calendar days from the date that an Order approving this Stipulation is entered, Defendant Murdoch shall provide Plaintiff with a sworn declaration describing his current health condition. Defendant Murdoch has further agreed to provide regularly scheduled updates to the Plaintiff regarding his health, including a mechanism for him to alert the Plaintiff if there is a material change in his health. Failure to provide updates in the agreed-upon manner as set forth in the Abatement Agreement shall result in an expedited deposition of Defendant Murdoch.
The parties have asked the judge to approve the stipulation and are awaiting that order.
Law&Crime reached out to Brito by email for comment on why the plaintiff agreed to a protracted delay in discovery, but he has not yet responded.
