.jpg)
Donald Trump’s litigious history with the media is well-documented. But his latest legal move a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch, The Wall Street Journal, and two of its reporters marks a dramatic shift in his ongoing battles with the press. This is not just another legal threat tossed into the media cycle; it’s a confrontation between two media powerhouses who, despite years of cooperation, may now find themselves on opposite sides of a courtroom or not.
The real question isn’t whether Trump can win the case. It’s whether it will ever reach trial at all.
A Long Alliance Faces a Public Rift
For nearly a decade, Rupert Murdoch, through his media empire including Fox News, has played a pivotal role in supporting Trump’s political career. From favorable coverage to strategic alignment, Murdoch’s platforms helped shape the Trump presidency and boost his image among conservatives.
But this new lawsuit filed by Trump stems from a Wall Street Journal article that linked the former president to the late Jeffrey Epstein a figure whose name continues to stir public controversy. Trump alleges that the Journal’s reporting was not only inaccurate but defamatory. The lawsuit claims serious reputational damage and demands an extraordinary sum of $10 billion in damages.
Yet legal experts and media analysts alike suggest that this case, like many before it, may never reach a judge or jury.
Why This Lawsuit Is Different and Why It Might Still Fade
Trump has filed or threatened numerous lawsuits against media companies over the years. While some of those suits have gained traction, many have quietly disappeared. But this one is significant for several reasons.
Firstly, it targets Murdoch someone who has, until now, been largely spared from Trump’s wrath. Secondly, it involves The Wall Street Journal, a publication known for its rigorous editorial standards and willingness to challenge even the most powerful figures.
And third, the timing matters. Since leaving office, Trump has continued to wield significant influence, both politically and financially. His legal strategy has included leveraging lawsuits not just for judicial wins, but for fundraising and public attention. Settlements, in many cases, have proven to be a surprisingly lucrative tool.
Libel Laws and the Burden of Proof
Trump’s legal team faces an uphill battle under U.S. libel law, especially given that he is a public figure. To win a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant published false information with actual malice meaning they knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
That’s a high bar. And when the defendant is a major publication like The Wall Street Journal, which employs layers of fact-checking and legal review, it becomes even steeper.
Moreover, the Journal has already shown it won’t shy away from continuing coverage. Just days after the initial report, it published another piece revealing that Trump’s name appeared multiple times in sealed documents related to the Epstein case further poking the bear.
The Murdoch Factor: A History of Strategic Retreat
While Murdoch’s media properties have fiercely defended themselves against defamation claims, the mogul himself is no stranger to settling lawsuits when it suits him.
Take, for example, the landmark $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 a defamation case involving Fox News’ coverage of the 2020 election. The deal was inked just days before Murdoch was scheduled to testify, indicating a clear preference for damage control over drawn-out legal battles.
At 94 years old, Murdoch may not have the appetite for another prolonged courtroom drama, especially one that could put him under the microscope.
Trump’s Strategic Use of Lawsuits
Some observers suggest that Trump’s true objective isn’t necessarily to win the case, but to discredit the reporting and dominate the media narrative. Legal action, even if it results in dismissal, allows Trump to cast doubt on negative coverage and rally his supporters.
In recent months, Trump has received settlements from several high-profile organizations, including Meta, Twitter/X, CBS, and ABC. Though many of these cases lacked strong legal grounding, they often concluded with monetary payouts or retractions that Trump could publicly spin as victories.
There’s also speculation that Trump’s real leverage lies in using the lawsuit as a way to pressure Murdoch sending a message not just to the Journal, but to the broader conservative media ecosystem: loyalty is expected.
A Transactional Relationship Between Titans
Despite their current tension, Trump and Murdoch have a history of mutual benefit. During Trump’s presidency, Fox News provided favorable coverage that helped solidify his base. In return, Trump often supported Murdoch’s business interests.
When Murdoch sold much of 21st Century Fox to Disney in 2017, Trump praised the deal and reportedly called Murdoch directly to express support. The Trump administration even intervened to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner a move some saw as a favor to Murdoch, who had hoped to acquire CNN.
This is not just a political feud it’s a business relationship gone sour, and that makes the potential for a backroom deal all the more likely.
What’s at Stake for Each Side
For Trump, prolonging the legal process carries risks. If the case proceeds, he may be required to participate in depositions, potentially under oath, regarding his past relationship with Epstein. That’s a scenario his legal team would likely want to avoid at all costs.
For Murdoch, the risk lies in public scrutiny. If this case brings him into a courtroom, or forces disclosure of internal communications, it could threaten not just The Wall Street Journal’s reputation, but also the broader credibility of the Murdoch media empire.
Given these stakes, both men may find that settlement offers the least bad outcome.
Could It All Just Go Away?
According to insiders familiar with both camps, a quiet resolution remains a likely scenario. A modest donation to Trump’s presidential library, a behind-the-scenes apology, or a carefully worded editor’s note might be all it takes to make the lawsuit disappear just as others have in the past.
As NPR’s David Folkenflik noted in a recent interview, these men aren’t ideologues they’re transactional. Their moves are calculated, and their loyalty shifts with convenience.
If a trial is looming, and either party feels the pressure, the checkbook may open. After all, what’s $10 million or even $16 million to billionaires with global influence?
A Legal Showdown That May Never Happen
The Trump vs. Murdoch case is captivating not just because of the figures involved, but because it encapsulates the volatile intersection of media, politics, and personal power.
But just like many dramatic lawsuits involving high-profile figures, the public may never see the inside of a courtroom. Instead, the real action may unfold behind closed doors, with lawyers, advisors, and PR teams crafting the outcome long before a judge can weigh in.
As with many Trump legal actions, the lawsuit may serve more as a media weapon than a genuine legal pursuit. But regardless of how it ends, it sends a clear signal to conservative media: no one, not even Rupert Murdoch, is untouchable.
.jpg)