Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Discovery Bid in WSJ Defamation Lawsuit

Former President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal has encountered a major legal setback.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles ruled that Trump cannot pursue discovery based on claims of actual malice against the publication. The judge deemed the request “improper,” stating that the court could not permit Trump to use the legal process “to help him properly plead his claims.”

“Thus, allowing President Trump to conduct discovery on actual malice, where his initial attempt at pleading a defamation claim fell short, is exactly the type of ‘expensive yet groundless litigation’ the Eleventh Circuit has cautioned against,”

Gayles wrote in his ruling.

Background of the Lawsuit

Trump filed the lawsuit in July 2025, alleging that the newspaper’s reporting—specifically that he submitted a letter and an explicit drawing to a birthday album for Jeffrey Epstein—was defamatory. Trump denied the accuracy of the report.

In April 2025, Judge Gayles dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Trump failed to plausibly allege that the newspaper acted with actual malice. However, the judge allowed Trump to file an amended complaint, which he subsequently did.

Now, Trump is barred from using the discovery process to gather evidence supporting his defamation claim. Gayles did leave the possibility open for Trump to file another amended complaint, though the prospects appear slim.

The House Oversight Committee’s release of materials from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate in September 2025 included the birthday book with Trump’s drawing, further undermining his claims.

Escalating Legal and Political Tensions

Earlier this week, Trump’s Justice Department issued subpoenas to Journal reporters regarding leaks from the Department of Defense related to the Iran war. Dow Jones, the publisher of the Journal, condemned the move, stating it “represents an attack on constitutionally protected news gathering.”

Trump’s ongoing criticism of the Journal and other media outlets that scrutinize his actions not only threatens press freedom but also lacks legal merit, legal experts argue.