Donald Trump has suffered another courtroom defeat after a federal judge tossed out his $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post, ruling there wasn’t enough evidence for the case to go before a jury.
In a decision handed down in Florida, U.S. District Judge Thomas Patrick Barber, who was appointed by Trump himself, granted summary judgment in favor of The Washington Post, effectively ending the lawsuit.
The case centered on a 2023 article about Trump Media & Technology Group, the company behind Truth Social. The report examined financing tied to the fledgling social media platform, including connections to a bank that served clients in the adult entertainment industry.
Trump’s company claimed the story was an “egregious hit piece” and accused the newspaper of carrying out a years-long campaign against him. The lawsuit alleged The Washington Post acted with “actual malice,” the high legal standard public figures must meet to win defamation cases.
The judge wasn’t convinced.
Barber ruled that Trump Media “failed to present evidence” that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude the newspaper acted with actual malice, a requirement established by decades of First Amendment law.
Without that showing, the case couldn’t move forward.
The ruling marks yet another legal defeat in Trump’s ongoing war with news organizations.
In recent months, courts have also dismissed Trump’s lawsuits against The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Earlier this year, Trump Media also voluntarily dropped a separate defamation case against The Guardian.
Ironically, while Trump lost the lawsuit, The Washington Post did acknowledge that parts of its original reporting were incorrect.
In May, the newspaper published a correction stating that Trump Media did not pay a previously reported $240,000 loan referral fee and therefore could not have failed to disclose that payment to shareholders or the Securities and Exchange Commission because no such payment existed.
Trump Media argues that correction proves the newspaper got the story wrong.
“We believe a jury should decide whether these falsehoods were actionable,” the company said in a statement, adding that it is considering an appeal.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, welcomed the ruling.
“We are pleased with the court’s decision and look forward to reviewing its written order upon release,” a spokesperson said.
The decision is the latest reminder that winning a political fight and winning a defamation lawsuit are two very different things.
Even when news organizations correct errors, public figures still must prove they knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. In this case, the court found Trump’s company failed to clear that high legal bar.
