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 prior to the publication of a report claiming that Donald Trump composed a “bawdy” 50th birthday card for notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, immediately following through on the threat with a $20 billion defamation complaint, and then demanding an expedited deposition of billionaire Rupert Murdoch, the president’s private legal team just revealed the docket will largely fall silent for a spell.
In mid-July, anticipation grew as rumor had it that an explosive WSJ story would shed further light on Trump’s friendship with Epstein, whom he partied with at Mar-a-Lago in the 1990s and praised in 2002 as a “terrific guy” with a noted interest in “beautiful women” on the “younger side” — three years before Epstein was first investigated in Palm Beach for sexually abusing young girls.
There have been conflicting stories about why Trump and Epstein had a falling out, amid intense scrutiny on the DOJ’s handling of the “Epstein files” and its subsequent nine-hour grilling of convicted and incarcerated sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox
But WSJ’s exclusive focused on a 50th birthday card for Epstein in 2003 that allegedly included a drawing of a naked woman, with Trump’s signature “below her waist,” and typed text like “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
The story said that several wealthy and powerful people, former President Bill Clinton and billionaire Leon Black among them, contributed to the Epstein 50th birthday album put together by Maxwell.
More Law&Crime coverage: Ghislaine Maxwell’s accuser ‘Jane’ testifies that Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Trump at Mar-a-Lago when she was 14
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 asked the judge to approve the stipulation and awaited that order. Gayles responded Tuesday afternoon by adopting the stipulation as jointly proposed.
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.
