THE SHORT VERSION
- A federal judge dismissed Trump's defamation claims against The Wall Street Journal for a second time on Oct. 31, this time with prejudice, so the claim cannot be refiled.一名联邦法官10月31日第二次驳回 Trump 对《The Wall Street Journal》的诽谤指控，且为带终局效力的驳回，该请求不能再行提起。
- Variety reports the suit sought at least $20 billion over a 2003 birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein; Deadline puts the figure at $10 billion and names the reporters and News Corp's chief executive among the defendants.Variety 报道称，诉讼围绕2003年一封寄给 Jeffrey Epstein 的生日信索赔至少200亿美元；Deadline 把数字写作100亿美元，并点出报道记者与 News Corp 首席执行官的姓名。
- The judge found the complaint fell short of actual malice, cited Justice Brandeis and held that a failure to investigate alone does not meet the standard; Dow Jones said it was pleased and Trump intends to appeal.法官认定起诉状未达实际恶意标准，并在意见书中引用 Brandeis 大法官；Dow Jones 表示满意，Trump 打算上诉。
A second dismissal, this time with prejudice第二次驳回，这次带终局效力
A federal judge dismissed President Donald Trump's defamation claims against The Wall Street Journal for a second time on Saturday, this time with prejudice, according to Variety and Deadline. Both outlets trace the case to a 2025 Journal article about a 2003 birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein, whom Variety describes as a convicted sex offender, that the paper said had purportedly been written by Trump. Deadline dates the article to July 2025 and says the letter appeared in a birthday book compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday.据Variety和Deadline报道，一名联邦法官周六第二次驳回美国总统 Donald Trump 对《The Wall Street Journal》的诽谤指控，这一次是带终局效力的驳回。两家媒体都把案件追溯到该报2025年一篇关于2003年一封寄给 Jeffrey Epstein 的生日信的报道；Variety 称 Epstein 是已被定罪的性犯罪者，并称该报表示这封信据称由 Trump 所写。Deadline 把这篇报道的时间定在2025年7月，并称这封信出现在一本为 Epstein 50岁生日编成的生日册中。
The dismissal is the second in the case and the first that cannot be undone at the trial level. Variety reports that Judge Gayles dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, which means the claim cannot be refiled. Deadline reports that the judge had thrown out an earlier version after concluding it failed to allege actual malice, but allowed Trump to amend it. The amended complaint reached the same end on Saturday, and the opinion runs to the pleadings rather than to the letter itself.这是本案第二次驳回，也是第一次在初审层面无法挽回的驳回。Variety 报道，Gayles 法官以带终局效力的方式驳回诉讼，这意味着该请求不能再次提起。Deadline 报道，法官此前已驳回较早版本的案件，认定其未能主张实际恶意，但允许 Trump 修改诉状。修改后的诉状在周六得到了同样的结局，而意见书针对的是起诉状本身，不是那封信。
The standard the complaint could not meet起诉状没能跨过的标准
Actual malice is the standard the U.S. Supreme Court set for public figures who sue over coverage of their conduct. Deadline reports that the judge opened his opinion with a quotation from Justice Louis Brandeis's concurring opinion in New York Times vs. Sullivan, the 1964 ruling that established the requirement. Deadline explains the test as showing that a media outlet published a story with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.实际恶意是美国最高法院为起诉媒体报道的公众人物设定的标准。Deadline 报道，法官在意见书开头引用了 Louis Brandeis 大法官在 New York Times 诉 Sullivan 案中的协同意见，正是1964年的这起判决确立了该要求。Deadline 把这一标准解释为：须证明媒体机构在明知报道虚假、或全然不顾其真假的情况下仍然刊发。
Variety reports that the judge found the pleadings insufficient. Judge Gayles wrote that Trump's lawsuit "falls short of pleading actual malice" and that the allegations of malice were "conclusory, vague, sometimes inconsistent with the Article" and often irrelevant to whether the defendants knew the statements were false. Deadline quotes the same passage at greater length. Neither outlet publishes the full opinion, so the reasoning available to readers is what the two stories reproduce, and both of them lead with the same finding.Variety 报道，法官认为起诉状不足以支撑主张。Gayles 法官写道，Trump 的诉讼未能充分主张实际恶意，相关指控笼统、含糊，有时与文章本身相互矛盾。Deadline 以更长篇幅引用了同一段文字。两家媒体都没有刊出意见书全文，读者能看到的推理就是这两篇报道所复述的部分，而两篇报道都以同一项认定开篇。
Two outlets, two damage figures两家媒体，两个索赔数字
The two accounts disagree on the size of the claim. Variety reports that Trump sought at least $20 billion in damages on two counts of defamation in the suit he filed in July 2025. Deadline puts the figure at $10 billion in its headline and in its first paragraph. Neither story explains the difference, and neither prints the damages paragraph from the complaint. The number matters for the fee motion the judge invited, since a larger claim carries a larger defense bill.两篇报道在索赔金额上并不一致。Variety 报道，Trump 在2025年7月提起的诉讼中就两项诽谤指控索赔至少200亿美元。Deadline 则在标题和第一段中把数字写作100亿美元。两家媒体都没有解释这一差异，也都没有刊登起诉状中的索赔段落。这个数字对法官所提示的费用动议有影响，因为索赔额越大，辩护账单也越大。
Variety reports that Trump sued the Journal, its parent companies Dow Jones & Co. and News Corp, the reporters on the story and Rupert Murdoch. Deadline names the reporters as Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzo, adds News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson to the defendant list, and notes that the July 2025 article included Trump's denial and his statement that he was preparing to sue. That detail later became central to the malice argument.Variety 报道，Trump 起诉了该报、其母公司 Dow Jones & Co. 与 News Corp、报道此事的记者以及 Rupert Murdoch。Deadline 点名记者为 Khadeeja Safdar 和 Joseph Palazzo，把 News Corp 首席执行官 Robert Thomson 列入被告，并提到2025年7月的那篇文章包含了 Trump 的否认以及他准备起诉的表态。这一细节后来成为恶意论证的关键。
Why the denials did not add up to malice否认为什么没有构成恶意
Trump has said he did not write the letter, and his revised complaint argued that the reporters could not have obtained it. Deadline reports that his attorneys claimed the journalists "did not have access to any such letter when the Article was published, which is a fact because no authentic letter or drawing exists." The judge rejected the inference. He wrote that Trump's position amounted to arguing that "once he declared the Letter a ‘fake,’ Defendants should have disregarded everything else they learned in their investigation and not published the story."Trump 一直表示这封信不是他写的，修改后的诉状主张记者不可能拿到这封信。Deadline 报道，其律师称记者在文章发表时并未接触过任何此类信件。法官不接受这一推论。他写道，Trump 的立场等于主张：一旦他把这封信称为假货，被告就应当无视调查中获得的其他一切材料，不予发表。
Deadline reports that the judge also rejected the argument that the Journal's investigation was inadequate, noting that "a failure to investigate, without more, does not establish actual malice." He called Trump's reliance on statements by Ghislaine Maxwell a red herring and said the suit did not show the reporters harbored serious doubts about the story. Deadline adds that the House Oversight Committee later released documents that included a letter matching the description the Journal had published.Deadline 报道，法官还驳回了该报调查不到位的论点，指出仅凭调查不足本身并不构成实际恶意。他把 Trump 对 Ghislaine Maxwell 陈述的依赖称为转移视线，并称诉讼未能证明记者对报道存有严重怀疑。Deadline 补充，美国众议院监督委员会后来公布的文件中包含一封与该报描述相符的信。
Dow Jones welcomes the ruling, and an appeal is promisedDow Jones 表示满意，上诉已在计划中
Dow Jones, the Journal's publisher, welcomed the outcome. Deadline quotes a spokesperson for the company saying, "We’re pleased with the court’s decision." Variety's account carries no comment from the company. Deadline does not name the spokesperson, and neither outlet says whether the Journal will pursue the costs of the litigation, which the judge said it could do by motion.该报出版方 Dow Jones 对结果表示欢迎。据 Deadline 报道，一位发言人说，他们对法院的裁决感到满意。Variety 的报道没有该公司的回应。Deadline 没有点出发言人姓名，两家媒体也都没有说明该报是否会追讨诉讼费用；法官表示该报可以就此提出动议。
A spokesman for the president's legal team, in Deadline's account, said the president "will continue to press forward in his powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants." Deadline reports that Trump intends to appeal the ruling. Neither outlet names the court that would hear an appeal, and neither reports that a notice of appeal has been filed. The case therefore sits at the end of its district court stage and not at the end of the dispute.据 Deadline 报道，总统法律团队的一位发言人称，总统将继续推进针对《The Wall Street Journal》及所有其他被告的强力诉讼。Deadline 报道，Trump 打算对该裁决提起上诉。两家媒体都没有写明将由哪个法院审理上诉，也都没有报道上诉通知已经提交。案件因此停留在地区法院阶段的终点，而不是争议的终点。
What the ruling leaves open裁决留下的空白
The ruling leaves the underlying factual dispute where it was. Deadline reports that the judge declined to determine whether Trump was the author of the letter, whether the statements in the article were true, or whether they were defamatory. What he decided was narrower: that the complaint did not plead actual malice. He also wrote that the Journal could seek its attorneys' fees, a step that would let the publisher try to recover the cost of the defense.裁决把事实争议留在了原处。Deadline 报道，法官拒绝认定这封信是否出自 Trump 之手、文章中的陈述是否属实、以及它们是否构成诽谤。他裁定的是更窄的问题：起诉状没有主张实际恶意。他还写道，该报可以申请律师费，这一步将让出版方尝试追回辩护成本。
For media defendants, the sequence matters more than the outcome. Both outlets report that the first dismissal left room to amend and the second did not, and both frame the ruling as the end of the case in the district court. Related coverage on this site includes Paula Reid's appointment as MS NOW chief White House correspondent, RedBird's $1 billion media fund, Matthew Weiner's exit from The Chairman and the ratified SAG-AFTRA TV animation contract.对媒体被告而言，程序顺序比结果更重要。两家媒体都报道，第一次驳回留下了修改空间，第二次没有；两家也都把这裁定视为案件在联邦地区法院的终点。本站相关阅读包括Paula Reid 出任 MS NOW 首席白宫记者、RedBird 的10亿美元媒体基金、Matthew Weiner 离开《The Chairman》以及SAG-AFTRA 电视动画合同获批。
Sources & reporting limits来源与核查范围
Follow Entertainment Industry to find related stories on your next visit.关注娱乐行业，下次访问时阅读相关文章。
