Lawyers for Rupert Murdoch and other defendants in Trump v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. have accused President Donald Trump of raising what they called a “red herring” in his latest filing, as part of a defamation case stemming from reporting on a letter linked to Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Newsweek contacted attorneys for Murdoch and Trump for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Friday.
Why It Matters
At the center of the latest filing in Trump v. Dow Jones & Company is a dispute over whether the court should recognize as authentic a letter bearing Donald Trump’s name that was found among Jeffrey Epstein’s papers and released by Congress.
The outcome could shape the future of Trump’s defamation case against The Wall Street Journal: if the judge accepts the document as a legitimate public record, it could bolster the defendants’ argument that their reporting was accurate and protected by law; if not, Trump’s claim that the paper relied on unverified or nonexistent material gains new traction.
What To Know
Murdoch’s Team Seeks Judicial Notice Of Epstein Records
In a reply brief filed November 5, 2025, attorneys for Murdoch, The Wall Street Journal, and its parent companies asked Judge Darrin P. Gayles to take judicial notice of documents they said are publicly available and central to Trump’s lawsuit.
Those materials include what has been called the “Birthday Book,” a compilation of letters prepared for financier Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday, and one letter that bears Trump’s name and signature.
Jeffrey Epstein was a wealthy financier and convicted sex offender who died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
Trump has claimed that the Journal and its reporters defamed him by publishing an article referring to a letter allegedly written by him to Epstein that contained both a fictional exchange and a doodle of a nude woman.
The president argues that there is no proof such a letter exists, and that the publication falsely linked him to Epstein in an inappropriate context.
Trump Calls The Letter A ‘Red Herring’
In his opposition to the defendants’ request, Trump “speculates that there remains ‘reasonable dispute’ that the letter bearing his name and signature that appeared in the Birthday Book ‘is the same drawing allegedly heard about, seen, imagined[,] or otherwise conjured up by a [Wall Street Journal] reporter,’” the filing states.
“This is a red herring,” the defendants’ reply continues. “Defendants ask the Court to consider these documents to establish that there was, in fact, a book of letters compiled for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday, one of those letters bore President Trump’s name and signature, and that letter contained a fictional conversation between President Trump and Epstein as well as a doodle of a naked woman. They are not asking this Court to determine what was or was not seen by Wall Street Journal reporters.”
The filing, submitted by attorneys from Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Dechert LLP, and Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., contends that Trump’s complaint centers on those same documents and therefore they are “incorporated by reference” into his pleadings.
“His baseless claim that the letter is ‘nonexistent’ does not change this conclusion,” the defendants wrote.
According to the brief, the Birthday Book and letter were among documents turned over by the Epstein estate to the House Oversight Committee under subpoena, and later published on the committee’s website.
The defendants argue that because these records are part of the public record of a government body, they are proper subjects for judicial notice.
“Public records are among the permissible facts that a district court may consider,” the filing said, citing Universal Express, Inc. v. U.S. S.E.C. (11th Cir. 2006).
Trump’s lawyers, in their opposition, maintained that the defendants’ reliance on those materials is misplaced, asserting that the authenticity and relevance of the alleged letter remain in dispute.
They also contended that judicial notice should not extend to documents whose meaning or provenance is contested.
The defendants countered that the purpose of judicial notice in this instance is not to establish the truth of the letter’s contents but to confirm the existence of the documents themselves.
“The Court can take judicial notice of these and the remaining exhibits to the Bolger Declaration because they are either government documents or they are news reports that are being introduced not for the truth of the documents’ contents but merely for their existence in the public record,” the filing said.
Defendants Argue Truth Shields Their Reporting
The motion further argues that even if the letter released by Congress were somehow different from the one referenced in The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, the article remains protected.
“The truth, whenever discovered, serves as a complete defense to defamation,” the defendants quoted from a prior federal decision, Marder v. TEGNA Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2020).
The Florida case, Trump v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-23232-DPG, remains in preliminary stages.
Judge Gayles has not yet ruled on whether to take judicial notice of the Epstein documents or on the defendants’ underlying motion to dismiss.
What People Are Saying
Donald Trump said on July 19, as per The Washington Post: “The Wall Street Journal printed a FAKE letter, supposedly to Epstein. These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures.”
Rupert Murdoch said on September 23, according to Business Standard: “By its very nature, this meritless lawsuit threatens to chill the speech of those who dare to publish content that the President does not like.”
What Happens Next
The next step in Trump v. Dow Jones & Company rests with U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, who must decide whether to take judicial notice of the Epstein “Birthday Book” and a letter bearing Donald Trump’s name that The Wall Street Journal cited in its reporting.
That ruling will shape whether Trump’s defamation suit moves forward or is dismissed early: if the judge accepts the documents as authentic public records, it strengthens the defendants’ argument that their reporting was accurate and legally protected; if he declines, Trump’s claim that the Journal relied on unverified material gains ground, potentially opening the door to discovery and a full trial.
