- Murdoch's team asked the court to take judicial notice of a Trump-signed letter from Epstein's "Birthday Book," arguing public records prove its existence.
- If the court accepts the records, the defamation suit could be dismissed early; a ruling will shape press protections and further probes.
In the swirling legal drama that’s become all too familiar for Donald Trump, the media mogul Rupert Murdoch is firing back—hard.
On November 5, 2025, lawyers for Murdoch, The Wall Street Journal, and its parent company Dow Jones & Company unleashed a blistering court filing, accusing the president-elect of tossing out distractions to dodge the facts in a high-stakes defamation lawsuit.
At the heart of the feud? A quirky, decades-old letter tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which Trump insists is a total fabrication.
The FrankNez Media Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
But as the case heats up in a Florida federal court, Murdoch’s side is betting on cold, hard public records to shut it down before it even gets off the ground.
Let’s rewind a bit to set the stage, because this isn’t just another tweetstorm—it’s a clash over truth, power, and the press that’s got everyone from legal eagles to late-night hosts buzzing.
Details of the Firestorm
Back in 2019, Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier whose web of elite connections made headlines for all the wrong reasons, took his own life in a Manhattan jail cell while facing federal sex-trafficking charges.
Epstein’s death didn’t bury the secrets, though; it unearthed them. Among the documents that surfaced was something called the “Birthday Book”—a curated collection of letters put together for Epstein’s 50th birthday bash in the late 1990s.
One entry? A letter supposedly from Trump, complete with his signature, a playful (or creepy, depending on your view) fictional chat between the two men, and—get this—a doodle of a naked woman.
Fast-forward to 2025: The Wall Street Journal runs a piece referencing this very letter, pulling from public records released by the House Oversight Committee after a subpoena to Epstein’s estate.
Trump, never one to let a story slide, erupts. On July 19, he blasts out a statement via 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.”
Fair enough, you might say—doodles aren’t exactly Oval Office material. But Trump didn’t stop at social media rants. He sued Dow Jones, The Journal, Murdoch himself, and a handful of others for defamation, claiming the article smeared him by peddling an “unverified” or outright “nonexistent” missive that falsely ropes him into Epstein’s sordid orbit.
The lawsuit landed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under the watchful eye of Judge Darrin P. Gayles (docket No. 1:25-cv-23232-DPG).
Trump’s team argues the letter’s authenticity is up for grabs, speculating wildly about what Journal reporters might have “heard about, seen, imagined[,] or otherwise conjured up.”
They want the court to hit pause on any deep dive into the documents until everyone hashes out whether this doodle-scribbled relic is legit.
It’s a classic Trump maneuver: Question everything, delay everything, and turn the spotlight on the “fake news.”
Trump’s Epstein Letter Could Take Judicial Notice
Enter Murdoch’s counterpunch. In a reply brief filed on November 5, the defendants—backed by heavy-hitter firms like Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Dechert LLP, and Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart—aren’t mincing words.
They want Judge Gayles to take “judicial notice” of the Birthday Book and the Trump-signed letter, treating them as undisputed public facts. Why?
Because these aren’t shadowy leaks; they’re straight from Congress’s website, subpoenaed from Epstein’s estate and out in the open for anyone to scrutinize.
The brief doesn’t just ask nicely—it calls Trump’s pushback a blatant dodge.
“This is a red herring,” it declares flatly.
“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.”
Boom. No conspiracy theories needed; just verify the existence, they say, and watch the case crumble.
Transparency is Imminent in the Epstein Files Scandal
Murdoch himself weighed in back on September 23, per Business Standard, framing the whole suit as a bully tactic: “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.”
It’s a line that echoes the free-press alarms that have rung out since Trump’s first campaign, when “enemy of the people” became his go-to media slur.
And the legal firepower backs it up: Citing cases like Universal Express, Inc. v. U.S. S.E.C. from the 11th Circuit, the brief reminds the court that public records—government docs, news clips—are fair game for notice.
“Public records are among the permissible facts that a district court may consider,” it notes. Even better for the defense?
Truth is an ironclad shield against defamation claims, as laid out in Marder v. TEGNA Inc.: “The truth, whenever discovered, serves as a complete defense to defamation.”
Trump’s lawyers aren’t buying it, of course. They counter that there’s “reasonable dispute” over whether the congressional letter matches whatever the Journal’s sources whispered about.
Handing the judge these docs now, they argue, would short-circuit their shot at proving the story was built on sand. It’s a standoff that’s pure courtroom theater: One side waving authenticated archives, the other yelling “fake!” from the rooftops.
As of now, the ball’s in Judge Gayles’ court—literally.
No ruling yet on the judicial notice request or the broader motion to dismiss, but the stakes couldn’t be higher.
A win for Murdoch and The Journal could torch the suit early, sending a signal to journalists everywhere: Dig into public records, and you’re safe.
A nod to Trump? It green-lights deeper probes, maybe even depositions where Epstein’s ghost looms large.
Either way, this spat isn’t just about one doodle—it’s a referendum on how far a powerful figure can swing the defamation hammer to silence scrutiny.
And let’s be real: With Trump’s inauguration looming and his administration already teasing media crackdowns, the timing feels seismic.
Will this “red herring” swim away, or hook something bigger? We’ll be watching Judge Gayles closely—because in Trump’s America 2.0, every ruling could rewrite the rules.
Also Read: A DOJ Whistleblower Now Makes Revelation That Undermines the Judicial System’s Integrity
