Two elderly figures at the center of a bitter political and media feud
Two men who once built their power in part through each other now find themselves bound by litigation rather than alliance. President Trump and media patriarch Rupert Murdoch have agreed to pause the deposition process in a $20 billion libel suit over an allegedly fabricated letter linking Trump to Jeffrey Epstein — a case that distills, in legal form, the collapse of a long and transactional relationship. The delay, contingent on the outcome of a dismissal motion, reveals that even adversaries in court can find common ground in patience, though the reckoning, if it comes, will be unavoidable.
- A $20 billion libel suit over a letter Trump calls fabricated has transformed a once-powerful media alliance into an open legal war.
- Trump's lawyers had pressed urgently for Murdoch's deposition, citing his age of 94 and declining health — then reversed course entirely.
- Both sides filed a joint agreement to freeze the deposition until a dismissal motion is decided, a significant tactical retreat from Trump's team.
- If the dismissal fails, Murdoch must be questioned within 30 days — and is required to send Trump's lawyers regular health updates in the meantime.
- Dow Jones stands firm, expressing full confidence in its reporting and vowing to fight the lawsuit vigorously, setting up a high-stakes judicial test.
President Trump and Rupert Murdoch have reached an unexpected pause in their escalating legal battle. The two men, whose relationship once thrived on mutual political and media benefit, are now adversaries in a $20 billion libel case — and have jointly agreed to delay Murdoch's deposition until a key dismissal motion is resolved.
The lawsuit stems from a Wall Street Journal report claiming Trump sent a sexually explicit birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Trump has called the letter a fabrication and sued Murdoch, Dow Jones, and related parties, accusing them of publishing the story despite being warned it was false. The Journal's editor, Emma Tucker, was also named as having been told the letter was fake before it ran.
What makes the agreement striking is how sharply it contradicts Trump's earlier legal strategy. His team had argued for an urgent deposition, citing Murdoch's age and serious health concerns — a standard tactic when a key witness is elderly. Yet both sides ultimately agreed to wait, filing a joint stipulation that postpones questioning until after the dismissal motion is ruled upon. Should the motion fail, Murdoch must sit for deposition within 30 days. As a safeguard, he is also required to provide Trump's legal team with regular health updates — with failure to do so potentially triggering an immediate expedited deposition.
The case reflects the broader deterioration of a once-formidable alliance. Trump, who long used Murdoch's outlets to amplify his message, has grown openly hostile toward Fox News and taken to calling the Wall Street Journal a 'Disgusting and Filthy Rag.' Dow Jones, for its part, has responded with measured confidence, stating it stands fully behind its reporting and will defend itself vigorously.
The dismissal motion now becomes the first real test of the lawsuit's viability. If it succeeds, the case ends before either man is ever questioned. If it fails, two figures at the center of a bitter feud will eventually have to face each other — under oath.
President Trump and Rupert Murdoch have struck an unexpected bargain in their escalating legal dispute. The two men, who once cultivated a mutually beneficial relationship through Murdoch's sprawling media empire, have agreed to postpone the media mogul's deposition in Trump's $20 billion libel case—a reversal that underscores the peculiar dynamics of their now-fractured alliance.
The lawsuit centers on a Wall Street Journal report published in July claiming that Trump sent a sexually explicit birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Trump has denied the allegation entirely, calling the letter fabricated, and filed suit against Murdoch, the Journal's parent company Dow Jones, and other connected parties. In his public statements, Trump accused Murdoch of failing to stop the story despite being warned directly that it was false. He also claimed that Emma Tucker, the Journal's editor, had been told the letter was fake but proceeded with publication anyway.
What makes the agreement notable is how sharply it departs from Trump's initial legal posture. His lawyers had previously insisted that Murdoch be questioned under oath as soon as possible, citing his advanced age—he is 94—and what they described as recent serious health problems. The urgency made tactical sense: securing testimony from an elderly witness before his health deteriorates further is standard litigation practice. Yet sometime between that demand and early August, both sides agreed to wait.
Under the terms of their joint court filing, Murdoch's deposition will be postponed until after the Wall Street Journal's motion to dismiss the case has been ruled upon. If the judge denies the dismissal motion and the lawsuit proceeds, Murdoch must then sit for questioning within 30 days. The filing also requires Murdoch to provide Trump's legal team with regular updates on his health status. Should Murdoch fail to furnish these updates, the agreement stipulates that an expedited deposition could be triggered immediately—a safeguard built into the deal itself.
The reversal illuminates the strange trajectory of Trump and Murdoch's relationship. For years, Trump treated the New York Post, another Murdoch property, as his preferred newspaper and leveraged Murdoch's vast media holdings to amplify his political message to conservative audiences. Murdoch, long regarded as a kingmaker in right-wing politics, benefited from Trump's ability to generate attention and drive engagement across his platforms. But that partnership has deteriorated markedly. Trump has grown increasingly hostile toward Fox News, another Murdoch outlet, frequently attacking it for featuring critics and commentators he views as disloyal. He has also taken to calling the Wall Street Journal a "Disgusting and Filthy Rag" on his Truth Social platform.
The agreement was first reported by Josh Gerstein, Politico's senior legal affairs correspondent, who obtained the court filing late Monday. The document itself—a joint stipulation regarding Trump's motion to compel an expedited deposition—shows both parties willing to pause the discovery process entirely until the dismissal motion is resolved. This is a significant concession from Trump's team, which had previously argued for speed and urgency.
Meanwhile, Dow Jones has maintained its position with quiet confidence. A company spokesperson stated that the outlet has "full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting" and will "vigorously defend against any lawsuit." The dismissal motion will be the first real test of whether the case has legal legs. If it succeeds, the lawsuit ends before either man is ever questioned. If it fails, the machinery of discovery will finally turn, and two elderly figures at the center of a bitter political and media feud will eventually have to face each other across a table with lawyers present.
Citações Notáveis
We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.— Dow Jones spokesperson
The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed was a FAKE.— Trump, on Truth Social
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would Trump agree to delay the deposition when his own lawyers argued Murdoch's age made speed essential?
Because the dismissal motion matters more. If the judge throws out the case, there's no deposition at all. Trump's team is betting they can win on the pleadings before ever having to prove their case in discovery.
But doesn't that contradict the health argument? If Murdoch's age was truly urgent, wouldn't that urgency still exist in a few months?
It would. But the health concern was always a litigation tactic—a way to pressure Murdoch into early testimony. Once both sides agreed to pause, that pressure evaporated. Now it's just a contractual obligation to keep Trump informed if Murdoch's condition changes.
What does this say about their actual relationship?
That it's completely transactional now. They're not enemies in the personal sense—they're just adversaries managing a lawsuit. The agreement itself is almost cordial. But the underlying hostility is real. Trump calls the Journal a rag. Murdoch's outlets have stopped being Trump's megaphone.
Is there any scenario where this case actually goes to trial?
Only if the dismissal motion fails. And even then, it might settle before depositions happen. But if it doesn't, yes—eventually one or both of them will have to testify under oath about a letter from 2003 that may or may not exist.
What's the real story here—the lawsuit, or the relationship?
The relationship. The lawsuit is just the current vessel for a much older story about power, loyalty, and what happens when two men who needed each other stop needing each other.