Trump's WSJ suit was dismissed again. "Never won" skips ABC's $16M.
A Reddit post says Trump has never won a defamation suit he brought. We found no court judgment for him, but ABC paid.
The bottom line
The Journal part checks out: a judge dismissed it with prejudice on Oct. 31, and Trump plans to appeal. We found no court judgment for Trump in a defamation suit he brought. But ABC paid $16 million to end one, and a pageant company he co-owned won a $5 million arbitration award. His Times, BBC and Pulitzer suits are live.
The claims
What the post says or clearly implies, checked one by one. How verdicts work
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit as a plaintiff.
Missing contextWe found no court judgment for Trump in a defamation suit he brought. But ABC paid $16 million to end one after a judge refused to toss it, and a pageant company he co-owned won a $5 million award.
Paul Farhi counts more than 30 suits against news organizations or journalists and no win in court1. Those we opened went against him: the Chicago Tribune in 19852, Timothy O'Brien in 20113, CNN in 2025 (petition pending)4,5, and his countersuit against E. Jean Carroll in 20236.
A judge refused to dismiss the ABC suit in 2024, "not reaching the merits"7. ABC agreed to $15 million for his presidential foundation, $1 million in fees and a note of regret8. A headline saying he "won"9 overstates it, since no court ruled the statements defamatory. Paramount's $16 million settled a consumer-protection suit10, releasing threatened defamation claims11.
In 2013 a judge upheld a $5 million arbitration award for defamation and breach of contract12 to the Miss Universe company, which Trump co-owned13. The contestant and her lawyer did not take part14. She reportedly settled for $1 million, with the judgment marked satisfied in 201415. Trump Media, 41.5% held by his trust in 202516, lost its $3.8 billion Post suit in July17.
A judge threw out Trump's $10 billion defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal with prejudice.
Checks outJudge Darrin Gayles dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on Oct. 31, after Trump twice failed to plausibly allege actual malice. Trump's team says it will appeal.
The suit sought $10 billion18. The April dismissal was without prejudice and let Trump refile19. The second one wasn't: "because this is President Trump's second attempt to allege his claims, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate." Gayles added that he "agrees that President Trump's defamation claims lack merit," and gave the defendants 30 days to seek attorneys' fees20.
The ruling turned on what the Journal knew. Who wrote the Epstein birthday letter stayed open: the court said it could not yet find that documents from the Epstein estate were the ones the article described20, and Trump denies writing it. His legal team confirmed he plans to appeal21.
His other big suits continue. The Times has moved to dismiss his third complaint22, after a judge refused to move the case to New York23. A Pulitzer board suit remains active24. Trump must sit for a BBC deposition by Dec. 11 or risk sanctions up to dismissal, unless discovery is extended25.
The real disagreement
Facts can't settle this part, so we don't rule on it.
Should it be as hard as it is for a public figure to win a defamation suit against the press?
Since 1964, public officials, and later public figures, have had to prove the publisher knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth20,26. Settlements sit inside that fight, since each side reads them differently.
The bar has become too high
Public figures can be harmed by falsehoods too, and the current standard leaves them almost no remedy in court.
Justice Gorsuch wrote in a 2021 dissent that actual malice has evolved "from a high bar to recovery into an effective immunity from liability." Defamation trials involving publications fell from about 27 a year in the 1980s to 3 in 201826. Justice Thomas wrote in the same case that "lies impose real harm"26. If almost no one can win in court, a record of no court wins says little about whether a report was accurate.
ABC's anchor said ten times that a jury or juries found Trump liable for rape7. The jury checked "no" on rape and found sexual abuse8. A judge ordered depositions, and ABC then paid and expressed regret8. The Post corrected two assertions after "discovery in the ongoing litigation," though they reflected its reporting "at the time of publication"17. The BBC apologized for its edit, while denying Trump's claims25.
The bar protects public debate
Officials shouldn't be able to punish critical reporting through lawsuits, and settlements don't show the reporting was false.
Gayles opened his order with Justice Brandeis on public discussion as a "political duty," and quoted the 11th Circuit that defending a suit through discovery "could chill free speech nearly as effectively" as having no standard20.
Even while refusing to dismiss, Judge Altonaga said ABC's theory had "one credible supporter": Judge Kaplan, who she said "repeatedly determined" that the verdict amounted to "a finding of liability for rape as rape is commonly understood"7. Paramount's co-CEO cited "somewhat unpredictable" costs and "the risk of an adverse judgment"11, and critics said it may have settled to smooth merger approval27. A federal disclosure shows $86.5 million from media and tech firms, all resolved after the 2024 election1, which this side reads as power. Specialist Tre Lovell says the system "can cost a lot of time and money, and the president is able to take advantage of that"27.
Where they agree
- A settlement is not a court finding on whether a statement was false, and the ABC deal produced none8.
What would change minds
- Evidence of why ABC chose to pay, including how its lawyers rated the case.
- Data on how often news outlets drop or soften accurate stories when threatened with a suit.
Sources
Every source was opened and read. Advocacy groups are labeled as such.
Show all 27 sources
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
Think we got something wrong? Email editor@viewfromthegallery.com with a source. Corrections are made openly and logged on the page.
Get new breakdowns by email
New breakdowns in your inbox: what was true, what wasn't, and what the argument is really about. No ads, no spin.