By T N Ashok
NEW YORK: America’s historical publication, the Wall Street Journal, is unfazed by President Trump’s $10bn defamation suit and says it will defend itself on its story of the Trump letter to Epstein as the British Editor Emma Tucker, who changed the landscape of political reporting in the UK, stands at the vortex of the debate and in the crosshairs of Trump.
President Donald Trump is once again at war—with the press. This time, it’s The Wall Street Journal squarely in his crosshairs, along with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and two of the paper’s investigative reporters. Trump filed a $10 billion defamation suit on Friday in federal court, on home turf, Florida, claiming the Journal published a “malicious and false” story linking him to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein via a risqué birthday greeting sent in 2003.
What’s fuelling further intrigue is the lawsuit notably omits WSJ Editor-in-Chief Emma Tucker, the British journalist who approved the controversial piece. Her absence from the case, insiders say, is as calculated as the lawsuit itself. Because it raises jurisdictional problems for the lawsuit as she is a British citizen and not an American citizen.,
The Journal’s article, published last week, alleged that Trump sent Epstein a birthday greeting consisting of a short message bordered by the sketch of a naked woman. The note concluded: “Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret,” and was signed “Donald.”
The note, the Journal claims, was part of an ornate leather-bound book filled with greetings from powerful men. According to the report, its authenticity was verified by handwriting analysts and two people familiar with Epstein’s personal archives.
The Trump campaign immediately called the report “disgusting, fabricated nonsense.” In a social media post, Trump wrote:“I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his pile of garbage newspapers, the WSJ. That will be an interesting experience!!!”
The lawsuit lists Dow Jones, News Corp, Murdoch, and two Journal reporters as defendants—but not the editor who signed off on the piece. Murdoch, now 94, is no stranger to political and legal storms. Born in Australia and raised in the bruising world of British tabloids, he built his empire on provocative journalism. He purchased The Times of London in 1981, launching an era of fierce editorial battles. But it was The Sun—his red-top tabloid—that helped pioneer the formula of scandal, sex, and power that would later define his American holdings.
Trump’s relationship with Murdoch has flipped from transactional alliance to open contempt. The two men once worked in tandem—Fox News helped build the Trump brand, and Trump, in turn, made Murdoch’s media properties essential viewing. But after Trump’s loss in 2020 and Murdoch’s pivot toward Ron DeSantis in early 2023, the relationship soured.
This lawsuit is Trump’s clearest attempt yet to strike back at the man who once gave him a megaphone. And the $10 billion figure? Designed to make headlines—and possibly crack boardroom nerves.
Emma Tucker is the silent center of this storm. A veteran British editor, she took the helm of The Wall Street Journal in 2023 after a storied career in London’s broadsheets. She began at the Financial Times, before joining The Times—where she quickly rose through the ranks. Her tough editorial instincts and pro-establishment sensibilities caught Murdoch’s attention. He personally selected her to replace Matt Murray, reportedly to make the Journal more “globally relevant and editorially aggressive.”
Under Tucker, the Journal sharpened its investigative edge. She was behind recent award-winning work on lobbying scandals in Washington and tech monopolies in Silicon Valley. She also restructured the paper’s editorial process, giving top editors more independence—something that, ironically, may shield her now.
Tucker is said to have defended the Epstein story in internal meetings, calling it “thorough, lawful, and important.” Staff familiar with her stance say she resisted pressure to delay or modify the piece despite its potential fallout.
A memo sent to newsroom employees shortly after Trump’s lawsuit reiterated the Journal’s position:“We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.”
Still, some media insiders wonder whether Tucker’s omission from the lawsuit is an oversight—or a manoeuvre. “She’s the brains behind the piece, but naming her would allow her to testify. That could backfire for Trump,” said Libby Saxon, a media law expert. “He wants Murdoch on the stand, not a level-headed Brit with meticulous notes.”
Behind the lawsuit is a broader offensive: discrediting Murdoch’s remaining influence and regaining control of right-wing media. Trump has previously lashed out at Fox News, The New York Post, and now the Journal, accusing Murdoch properties of being “disloyal” and “Deep State controlled.”
In a follow-up post on Truth Social, Trump even suggested that The Wall Street Journal should replace its editor with someone more aligned with “real journalism.”“Maybe it’s time for the WSJ to have an editor who understands what truth means. Tucker Carlson? Lara Logan? People who don’t print lies.”
The suggestion, whether serious or not, underscores Trump’s growing desire to consolidate narrative control. He no longer sees Murdoch as an ally—but as a gatekeeper who needs to be sidelined. Lara Logan and Tucker Carlson have been the frontlines in the US media to shape public opinion on Trump’s ultra far right policies and are known for pushing his agenda aggressively in the media.
The lawsuit comes as the Department of Justice moves to unseal grand jury transcripts related to the Epstein case. With Attorney General Pam Bondi—another Trump loyalist—leading the charge, the administration is trying to regain trust among MAGA supporters who were disillusioned by earlier delays in releasing Epstein files.
Pam Bondi was the lawyer who defended Trump in court rooms in 2023 when he was facing a litany of cases against him allegedly from fraud in business practices to election racketeering with false claims of a stolen election and threatening witnesses. .
A recently released DOJ memo said there is “no blackmail list” and concluded Epstein died by suicide. But the public isn’t convinced—and Trump’s legal move is as much a smoke bomb as it is a libel suit.“He wants people talking about Murdoch and the Journal, not about flight logs and party photos,” said political strategist Marco Devine. “It’s the classic Trump manoeuvre: counterattack before the story hardens.”
Still, sources say Murdoch is privately fuming. Not about the story—but about being personally named. He sees Trump’s vendetta as damaging to investor confidence in Dow Jones, especially as talks to spin off digital assets heat up. Whether that will affect Tucker’s future remains unclear. She retains Murdoch’s trust—for now.
Trump’s legal case is expected to face a high bar. Libel suits by public figures require proof of “actual malice”—that the Journal published knowing the story was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. With multiple sources backing the note’s authenticity, legal analysts say Trump’s odds are long.
But the real battle isn’t in court. It’s in public opinion—and control over the conservative information ecosystem. Murdoch built an empire out of chaos. Trump’s betting he can now tear a chunk of it down—and maybe, one day, rebuild it in his image. (IPA Service)
