Murdoch could squeak a win in Trump’s $10bn libel lawsuit
Who’s your money on – Trump or Murdoch? These two titans are locked in a $10 billion lawsuit over a claim by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that Donald Trump wrote a “bawdy” birthday note to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
On paper, Trump should prevail. He’s President of the United States, which routinely earns him the title “the most powerful man in the world”.
But I’m tempted to bet on Murdoch, not only the best newspaperman of his generation, but the best businessman too. Trump, while a rich man, doesn’t come close.
The two have been “friends” for decades, though perhaps that is putting it a bit strongly. Do such men really have friends?
In Trump’s case friendship, like everything else, is transactional. His first thought on meeting someone must be: What’s in this for me?
With Murdoch it is all about power and influence. He is a king-maker. Little wonder, then, that with his Right wing convictions he formed a symbiotic relationship with The Donald.
The two need each other, feed off each other, would barely exist as the big beasts they are without each other.
Trump is anxious to distance himself from Epstein, despite ample historical and photographic evidence that they were close. The WSJ claimed he had been named in the Epstein files, though it did not impute guilt.
Epstein, 66, was found hanged in prison in New York in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Conspiracy theories surround the official ruling that his death was suicide.
In any case, the connection has tarnished Trump in the eyes of some of his MAGA supporters, who demand more transparency.
Trump claims the piece in the WSJ, which Murdoch owns, libelled him when it reported that the note was sent in 2003 on the occasion of Epstein’s 50th birthday. It was false, malicious and defamatory, Trump alleges, adding that the WSJ is a “useless rag”.
He went on in a social media post: “I hope Rupert and his ‘friends’ are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies they will have to provide in this case.”
Dow Jones, the WSJ’s parent company, said: “We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting and will vigorously defend against any law suit.”
The newspaper alleged that the letter contained an outline of a naked woman, hand drawn with a thick marker pen. Inside was written: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump denied writing it and said: “I don’t draw pictures.”
The push back by Murdoch is characteristic of the man. He doesn’t take kindly to bullying and besides, at 94, this ain’t his first rodeo. He had to ride the bucking bronco of the phone hacking scandal in London – an existential crisis for his British media empire.
He survived even against the pig-headed obstinacy of the Duke of Sussex, although he was forced to sacrifice the News of the World, the paper that first gave him a toehold in Fleet Street.
Ten billion dollars would of course make a big dent in his fortune, were he to lose. Some observers don’t believe he will lose and suggest that the most likely outcome is that the two will reach a settlement involving much less money.
Cannily, Murdoch has fenced off the spat between Trump and the WSJ. While the Journal insists its reporting was accurate and it will fight the President’s claims, Murdoch’s cash cow, Fox News, has only carefully and sketchily reported the story.
It is significant that the WSJ’s parent company, the Dow Jones division of News Corp, brought in $575 million in the first quarter; the Fox outlets scooped up $1.64 billion in the same period.
Trump has form for suing media organisations. Only last December, ABC network shelled out $15 million to good causes in settlement of a defamation case brought by Trump.
He also sued CBS over an interview with Kamala Harris, his Democrat rival in the latest presidential race. That cost the station’s parent company Paramount $16 million.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to confound America’s founding fathers who did their best to incorporate checks and balances into the US Constitution.
He blunders about unchecked in the world’s most delicate crises, needling, provoking, backtracking. He causes havoc in trading relations and angers America’s friends and neighbours. The man is unbalanced, off his rocker, plainly dangerous.
As for Murdoch, didn’t he retire in 2023, ceding control of his empire to son Lachlan?
Well, yes… but, as Preston Padden, who was one of Murdoch’s lieutenants at Fox, told the Guardian last week: “As long as he’s around, it’s his candy store.”
There was a curious footnote to this story. Briefly and tantalisingly, Trump dangled the slight possibility that Ghislaine Maxwell, might somehow earn a pardon for her role as Epstein’s partner in crime.
Maxwell, 63, daughter of the late Mirror owner Robert, who plundered the paper’s pension fund, groomed girls for Epstein. She is now serving 20 years in prison in Tallahassee, Florida, for sex trafficking.
Trump’s deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, who is his former personal lawyer, visited Maxwell there to ask her questions about the Epstein scandal.
There was speculation that Maxwell might strike a deal for her release in exchange for information that could help the President.
Before flying to Scotland on a private visit, Trump told reporters he had the right to pardon Maxwell. “I’m allowed to do it but it’s something I haven’t thought about,” he said.
It’s not quite a definitive denial, is it?
*****
Hooray for the Lionesses. Even I, not an ardent fan of women’s football, was glued to the telly on Sunday evening.
I’m thrilled that they won but I have to say I thought they were the second best team. Spain shaded them in the match but, not for the first time, the Lionesses saved their best for the penalty shootout.
How good was Hannah Hampton, with her aide memoire of which way Spain’s players would direct their penalties taped to her left arm?
And I felt sorry for Beth Mead, who took the first penalty of the shootout and found the net after slipping in the final pace of her approach to the spot.
The referee ruled that she had touched the ball twice and the kick had to be taken again. The second time she missed.
I wonder, if she had fired wide the first time, would she have been ordered to take the penalty again?
We’ll never know. Or care. Because we won. Note, I said “we”.
*****
I recently caught sight of a document so draconian that old Fleet Street reporters and fathers of the chapel would have shaken their heads in despair after reading it and adjourned to the pub to lament the end of days.
It was new guidance to Reach journalists on how to claim expenses. The rules are so tight and the allowable expenses so paltry that it is no wonder Reach journalists sit in front of their computers all day.
If a reporter were to do a doorstep for a Reach paper he could end up owing them money. Well, not quite perhaps, but consider this:-
If you’re on the road you can’t claim for laundry unless you’re staying four days or more.
You can’t charge for the TV, phone or minibar in your hotel room. And don’t imagine they will let you put the bar bill on your expenses.
If breakfast is not included with the room, you can claim £6 to eat it elsewhere.
Don’t entertain any thought of, well, entertaining. The bureaucracy isn’t worth it.
I tell you, even the legendary Norman Luck would have had trouble wringing the bawbees out of this lot.
Then again, he wasn’t a legend for nothing.
RICHARD DISMORE
30 July 2025
