TAMPA, Fla., July 8 — A federal judge dismissed Trump Media & Technology Group’s $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post on Wednesday, ruling that the company failed to produce sufficient evidence that the newspaper acted with the “actual malice” required under U.S. defamation law. The decision came from U.S. District Judge Thomas Barber of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, who granted summary judgment in favor of The Washington Post and said a detailed written opinion will follow.

The lawsuit stemmed from a May 13, 2023, Washington Post article titled “Trust linked to porn-friendly bank could gain a stake in Trump’s Truth Social.” The report examined financing arrangements surrounding Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, as it sought funding before completing its merger that took the company public.

The article reported that Trump Media had received an $8 million loan from ES Family Trust and stated that the company had paid a $240,000 referral fee to Entoro Securities, a brokerage associated with the transaction. As the litigation progressed, the dispute narrowed to two statements concerning whether that referral fee had in fact been paid.

Judge Barber ruled that Trump Media failed to meet the demanding legal standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Under that precedent, public figures must prove by clear and convincing evidence that allegedly defamatory statements were published with actual malice—meaning the publisher either knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true.

According to the court, the evidence presented during discovery did not support such a finding. Judge Barber concluded that The Washington Post had conducted a legitimate reporting process before publication, including interviews conducted by reporter Drew Harwell, review of available documents and information provided by former Trump Media co-founder Will Wilkerson. The court found no evidence that the newspaper knowingly published false information or recklessly ignored the truth.

Trump Media argued that a correction added to the article in May 2026 demonstrated the original reporting was inaccurate. The correction acknowledged that discovery had established Trump Media did not pay the $240,000 referral fee referenced in the article while also stating that the original reporting reflected the information available to the newspaper at the time of publication.

Judge Barber rejected the company’s argument, finding that a correction issued years later does not establish actual malice when the article was originally published. The ruling emphasized that mistakes alone are not enough to satisfy the constitutional standard governing defamation claims brought by public figures.

A spokeswoman for The Washington Post welcomed the decision, saying the newspaper was pleased with the court’s ruling and looked forward to reviewing the judge’s full written opinion once it is released. The court also canceled a pretrial conference that had been scheduled for July 13, effectively bringing the case to a close unless an appeal is filed.

The decision comes as Trump Media continues to navigate financial and operational challenges. The company, which trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker DJT, has experienced significant share-price volatility since completing its merger with Digital World Acquisition Corp. in March 2024. Although the company has reported a substantial cash position, investors have continued to focus on its ability to grow advertising revenue, expand subscriptions and develop sustainable long-term earnings.

The ruling also fits into a broader pattern of litigation involving President Donald Trump and media organizations. In recent years, multiple lawsuits filed against national news outlets have been dismissed after courts concluded the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the constitutional actual-malice standard required for public figures seeking defamation damages.

For investors, the immediate financial impact of Wednesday’s ruling is limited. The lawsuit did not represent a core operating asset, nor was any recovery reflected in analysts’ financial models. However, the dismissal closes another lengthy legal battle as management remains under pressure to demonstrate that Truth Social can translate its sizable user base and capital resources into consistent revenue growth and long-term profitability.

The judge’s forthcoming written opinion may offer additional guidance on the court’s reasoning, but for now the ruling underscores the high legal hurdle public companies and public figures face when pursuing defamation claims against major news organizations. From a business perspective, investors are likely to remain far more focused on Trump Media’s operating performance, user growth and monetization strategy than on litigation against the press.

JBizNews Desk | Tampa

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.