A federal judge criticized the Washington Post’s reporting as “sloppy and inadequate” in a written order rejecting Trump Media’s $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit against the outlet.
“The evidence in this case could certainly lead reasonable people to conclude that the Post’s investigation and reporting on the issue discussed above was sloppy and inadequate,” Judge Tom Barber wrote in the Thursday filing. “And as a result, the Post published a story that included false information that, nearly three years into this litigation, it had to ‘correct.’”
Yet, as Barber continued, he noted that “as the law currently stands, a public figure plaintiff must come forward with clear and convincing evidence of actual malice before the case may proceed to a jury trial.”
“Under these twin requirements, there is no doubt that it is extremely difficult for a public figure plaintiff to bring a successful defamation claim against a media defendant,” he noted before suggesting that “that the law in this area needs to be revisited.”
“If the law did not require ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of actual malice, it is likely the Post’s motion for summary judgment would have been denied,” Barber said, “and a jury would have had the opportunity to weigh in on this matter.”
Yet, Barber explained he was “bound” by the current law, which is why he ruled that Trump Media’s “evidence is insufficient to support a finding of actual malice under the clear and convincing standard, and summary judgment for the Post is therefore required.”
Representatives for Trump Media and the Washington Post did not immediately respond to TheWrap’s request for comment.
The explanation came weeks after Barber ruled in favor of The Washington Post, formally throwing out Trump Media’s $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit against the outlet.
In Barber’s summary docket, he wrote that President Donald Trump’s social media company “failed to present evidence that would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence” that the outlet “published the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice.”
“The Pretrial Conference set for July 13, 2026, is cancelled,” he further noted. “A written order memorializing and explaining these rulings will follow in due course.”
At the time, a Washington Post spokeswoman told TheWrap that they were “pleased with the court’s decision” and looked forward to “reviewing its written order upon release.”
As for Trump Media? A spokesperson for the company noted they were considering an appeal effort over Barber’s ruling.
“After three years, The Washington Post finally admitted its harmful story was false,” the spokesperson said at the time. “We believe a jury should decide whether these falsehoods were actionable and will evaluate whether to appeal last week’s ruling in due course. We will also continue to hold the media accountable.”
The decision came three years after Trump Media first sued The Washington Post for defamation, alleging a “years-long crusade” had been conducted by the paper. The Trump Media lawyers cited an “egregious hit piece” in their suit, referring to a May 2023 article that discussed the company’s financing efforts ahead of a merger to take the company public.
The Post later updated the article in-question with a correction following discovery in the case, writing, “Discovery in the ongoing litigation has established that Trump Media didn’t pay a loan referral fee of $240,000, as was stated in the article and was based on The Post’s reporting at the time of publication.”
