President Trump has threatened a lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over a report accusing him of sending a sexually explicit birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein.

At a Glance

• The Wall Street Journal reported Trump contributed a risqué 2003 birthday note and drawing to Epstein’s collection.
• Trump denied involvement, labeling the claim “fake” and “defamatory,” while threatening legal action against WSJ and its parent company.
• Trump and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claim they warned the Journal the letter was fabricated before publication.
• Vice President JD Vance publicly defended Trump, calling the story unethical and factually incorrect.
• The controversy emerges as Trump faces intensified scrutiny over past associations with Epstein.

Media vs. Messaging

President Trump’s latest confrontation with the press marks a calculated escalation in his long-standing war with mainstream media. The Wall Street Journal’s explosive report alleged that Trump personally penned a sexually explicit birthday message and a crude drawing in 2003, gifted to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump immediately refuted the allegation, branding the article a “defamatory fabrication” and promising to sue both the Journal and its owner, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

The Journal’s reporting added fuel to a scandal that has dogged Trump for years: his historical relationship with Epstein. By publicly vowing legal retribution, Trump not only contests the veracity of the claims but also sends an unmistakable warning shot to other outlets considering similar exposes. His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, stated that they had preemptively informed the Journal that the document in question was a forgery. Nonetheless, the paper proceeded with publication, intensifying Trump’s fury.

Watch a report: WSJ bombshell report: Trump’s ‘bawdy’ birthday letter to Epstein, MSNBC

Vice President JD Vance amplified the defense, denouncing the Journal’s editorial standards and accusing the media of reviving debunked narratives for political gain. Vance characterized the piece as a calculated attempt to smear Trump during a precarious election season. His intervention signals that the administration is eager to present a unified front, with the broader MAGA apparatus rallying to shield Trump from renewed scandal.

Spotlight on Accountability

Legal analysts caution that Trump’s defamation threat faces formidable obstacles. Under U.S. law, public figures pursuing defamation must prove not just falsehood but also “actual malice”—meaning the publisher knew the information was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. Given this high threshold, Trump’s lawsuit, if formally filed, could set the stage for a contentious legal battle over journalistic ethics and sourcing reliability.

Should the lawsuit advance, the Journal may be compelled to disclose its sources and corroborative evidence. This could drag call logs, archival materials, and testimony from insiders back into the spotlight, further complicating Trump’s efforts to distance himself from Epstein’s shadow. Even absent litigation, the controversy is poised to sustain media attention on Trump’s past affiliations, a politically risky development as his re-election campaign accelerates.

Adding to the tension, industry observers note that this feud with Murdoch-owned media may fracture a delicate alliance. Though Fox News and the Journal have historically maintained fluctuating stances on Trump, an open legal war would deepen hostilities within conservative media ecosystems. Trump’s supporters already distrust mainstream outlets; a legal crusade against the Journal may fortify that sentiment but risks alienating conservative institutions that have occasionally bolstered his narrative.

Ultimately, Trump’s combative posture reveals a familiar strategy: discredit the messenger, muddy the allegations, and energize his base by framing himself as a victim of elite conspiracies. Whether this tactic defuses the Epstein linkage or intensifies public scrutiny remains an open—and perilous—question for the embattled president.