Donald Trump publicly celebrated the prospect of forcing Rupert Murdoch to answer questions under oath about the Wall Street Journal’s reporting on Jeffrey Epstein.

That confrontation may never happen.

A federal judge has frozen all evidence-gathering in Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit while considering the Journal’s request to dismiss the case permanently.

U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles imposed the stay Wednesday after hearing arguments in Miami federal court.

The order blocks depositions, document demands and other discovery—including Trump’s attempt to question Murdoch, the chairman emeritus of News Corp.

The ruling is not a final determination that the Wall Street Journal’s reporting was accurate or that Trump’s lawsuit is legally defective.

But it delivers an immediate setback to the president by preventing him from using discovery while the judge decides whether the case deserves to proceed at all.

Trump filed the lawsuit in July 2025 after the Journal reported that a letter bearing his name appeared in an album assembled for Epstein’s 50th birthday.

According to the newspaper, the letter included a drawing of a naked woman and ended with a suggestive message:

“A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Trump has emphatically denied creating or signing it.

He responded to the report by suing the Journal and demanding $10 billion in damages. He also said on Truth Social that he looked forward to taking Murdoch’s deposition.

The Journal now argues that the president’s amended complaint still fails to establish a viable defamation claim.

Its attorneys want the case dismissed “with prejudice,” a legal outcome that would prevent Trump from bringing the same claim again in federal district court.

“His case should be dismissed again—this time with prejudice,” the newspaper argued in a June filing.

The central obstacle for Trump is the demanding standard applied to public officials in American defamation law.

As president and one of the world’s most famous political figures, Trump cannot prevail merely by showing that a published statement was incorrect. He must plausibly establish “actual malice”—that the publisher knew the disputed claim was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true.

The Journal says Trump’s amended complaint falls “woefully short” of satisfying that requirement.

It argues that the new allegations strengthen the conclusion that he will never be able to meet the standard.

A later development may have made Trump’s position even more difficult.

After Congress subpoenaed Epstein’s estate in 2025, the resulting release reportedly included a birthday book containing a letter resembling the one described by the Journal.

The newspaper says Trump does not meaningfully dispute that resemblance.

That does not conclusively prove Trump wrote the letter. A document can bear someone’s name or imitate that person’s style without being authentic, and Trump continues to deny authorship.

But defamation law focuses not only on ultimate truth. It also examines what the publisher knew and whether its reporting process demonstrated reckless disregard for accuracy.

The existence of a document matching the Journal’s description could make it considerably harder to argue that the newspaper fabricated its story or published it with obvious doubts about its truth.

The Journal is also seeking something beyond dismissal.

It wants Trump ordered to pay its legal expenses under anti-SLAPP laws in Florida and New York. Those statutes are intended to discourage meritless litigation aimed at punishing or silencing protected speech.

“This lawsuit, brought by the President of the United States, subverts this principle,” the Journal argued, referring to First Amendment protections.

Whether those state provisions apply—and whether the newspaper is entitled to fees—will depend on the judge’s interpretation of the claims and governing law.

Trump’s attorneys can argue that discovery is necessary to examine the document’s origin, the Journal’s sources and the decisions made before publication. They may also contend that suspending evidence-gathering gives the defendants an unfair advantage before disputed facts have been explored.

Judges, however, frequently pause expensive discovery while considering a potentially case-ending motion. Doing so prevents the process itself from becoming a punishment if the complaint is legally insufficient.

That is why Wednesday’s order matters.

Trump’s public rhetoric suggested that Murdoch’s deposition would be a dramatic reckoning. Instead, the case has reached a procedural checkpoint where the president must first persuade the judge that he has alleged enough facts to enter the evidence-gathering phase.

If Judge Gayles denies the Journal’s motion, discovery could resume and Trump may still pursue testimony from Murdoch and others.

If the judge dismisses the case with prejudice, the promised confrontation disappears—and Trump could face a demand to pay the newspaper’s legal bills.

The president filed a $10 billion lawsuit expecting the Wall Street Journal to answer his questions.

Now, before Rupert Murdoch answers a single one, Trump must convince the court that his case belongs there.