Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

A Miami‑based U.S. District Judge, Darrin Gayles, dismissed former President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its proprietor Rupert Murdoch. The case centered on a July 2025 article that linked Trump to a birthday greeting allegedly sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.Judge Gayles concluded that Trump, as a public figure, did not satisfy the stringent “actual malice” threshold required in defamation actions. To prevail, a plaintiff must prove that the media outlet knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.In his written opinion, Gayles noted that WSJ reporters had reached out to Trump for comment before publishing the story and included his denial, thereby giving readers a balanced view. He wrote, "This complaint comes nowhere close to the actual‑malice standard—quite the opposite."The judge granted Trump permission to file an amended complaint, setting a deadline of April 27 for any revisions.Trump’s original filing labeled the alleged birthday note to Epstein as a “fake” and sought damages for perceived harm to his reputation. The newspaper’s parent company, News Corp’s Dow Jones & Company, defended the article’s accuracy, emphasizing its adherence to journalistic standards.The dismissal adds to a series of legal setbacks for the former president as he attempts to curb reporting on his connections to Epstein. Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that he intends to re‑file the suit within the court‑ordered timeframe.A Dow Jones spokesperson welcomed the decision, stating, "We are pleased with the judge’s decision to dismiss this complaint and stand behind the reliability, rigor, and accuracy of The Wall Street Journal’s reporting."

A federal judge in Miami has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and News Corp, granting the former president a two‑week deadline to refile the case. Trump’s suit, filed last summer, alleged that a lewd drawing featured in a July 2025 article—purportedly a “bawdy” birthday letter to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein—was fabricated, and that the newspaper published it with actual malice. The complaint also named media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp owns the Journal, as a defendant. Judge Darrin P. Gayles ruled that the complaint “fails to adequately allege actual malice,” the legal standard required for defamation actions by public figures. He noted that the Journal had conducted a “significant” inquiry into the authenticity of the drawing and that Trump’s assertion of falsity alone does not prove the newspaper acted with “serious doubts” about the story’s truth. In his opinion, the judge wrote: “Because President Trump has not plausibly alleged that defendants published the article with actual malice, both counts must be dismissed.” He also observed that Trump’s team had not presented evidence of special damages. Under the order, Trump may refile the lawsuit by April 27 with additional proof that the Journal knowingly published false material. A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team confirmed they will pursue a revised filing, emphasizing the administration’s intent to “hold accountable those who traffic in fake news.” The Wall Street Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones, welcomed the decision. A Dow Jones representative said, “We stand behind the reliability, rigor and accuracy of The Wall Street Journal’s reporting.” The dismissal underscores the stringent “actual malice” requirement for defamation suits involving public officials, a threshold that continues to shape media‑law battles in the United States. It also leaves Trump with ongoing litigation against the BBC and other media outlets over separate First Amendment disputes.

The United States government has reaffirmed its position that it plans to deport Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, despite arguments that doing so would be vindictive.On Tuesday, lawyers for the administration of President Donald Trump told US federal judge Paula Xinis that it remains committed to Liberia as a destination.Abrego Garcia, however, has said that, if he must be deported, he would prefer to be sent to Costa Rica, and the government there has indicated it would accept him.But the Trump administration’s insistence on sending Abrego Garcia to Africa has raised questions about its motive.Critics have accused the US government of seeking retribution against Abrego Garcia, whose case has spurred scrutiny over the legality of Trump’s mass deportation campaign.The case began with a high-profile mistake. In March 2025, less than three months into Trump’s second term, Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador, in violation of a 2019 protection order that found he could face gang violence if returned to the country.The Trump administration, at the time, described Abrego Garcia’s removal as an “administrative error”.Still, it initially refused to seek his return, arguing that Abrego Garcia was a gang member and that, once abroad, he was subject to El Salvador’s leadership. Abrego Garcia, though, had no criminal record at the time of his deportation.Abrego Garcia was imprisoned, first at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) and later in a second prison in Santa Ana, El Salvador.Meanwhile, lawyers in the US had turned to US courts to reverse his deportation.In early April 2025, Judge Xinis ruled that the US government had to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the country, and later that month, the US Supreme Court upheld her ruling in a unanimous decision.But it was only in June 2025 that Abrego Garcia was brought back to the US. In announcing Abrego Garcia’s return, the Trump administration revealed it would be filing criminal charges against him for human smuggling.He pleaded not guilty, but was forced to remain in jail. The Trump administration had deemed him a flight risk, and his own lawyers feared that stepping out of his jail cell would land him in immigration detention instead.When a court ordered his release in August, this is exactly what happened: Immigration agents took him back into custody within days.Authorities at the time said they would deport him to Uganda. Later, they changed the proposed destination to Liberia.Abrego Garcia was ultimately freed from immigration detention in December, but he continues to fight both his criminal charges and his deportation proceedings.At Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Xinis questioned why the Trump administration would not consider deporting Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica instead of Liberia.She pointed out that the country had recently inked an agreement to accept 25 removals from the US per week.In response, Ernesto Molina, the director of the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, suggested that Abrego Garcia could “remove himself” to Costa Rica.But Xinis called the proposal a “fantasy” and noted that he cannot leave as long as the Justice Department is prosecuting him on criminal charges. He is legally required to attend his criminal hearings.After the tense exchange, Xinis set another hearing on the matter for April 28.

A United States federal judge has rejected a motion from the Department of Justice to reconsider his earlier ruling dismissing subpoenas against Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve.In a six-page opinion published on Friday, Judge James Boasberg reaffirmed his decision to nullify the subpoenas, stating that they were issued for an 'improper purpose': to pressure Powell into compliance with President Donald Trump's demands.The subpoenas were part of an investigation into Powell's handling of renovations to the Federal Reserve's historic buildings in Washington, DC, which have gone over budget. The Trump administration has accused Powell of 'malfeasance' and called for his premature resignation.Boasberg criticized the Trump administration's efforts, saying they presented 'no evidence whatsoever of fraud' and that the subpoenas were an attempt to undermine the Federal Reserve's independence.The ruling is likely to set the stage for the Trump administration to appeal, with US Attorney Jeanine Pirro previously denying any political motivation for the investigation.

A federal judge has dismissed 10 out of 13 claims made by Blake Lively against director Justin Baldoni, including allegations of sexual harassment, conspiracy, and defamation. The lawsuit, which centers around the filming of 'It Ends With Us,' a domestic abuse drama where Lively and Baldoni starred as characters with intimate scenes, will proceed to trial next month on claims of a retaliatory campaign against Lively.Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, described the defendants as 'very good people who have not engaged in this sexual harassment as alleged.' He expressed satisfaction with the court's ruling, stating it confirms what his legal team believed from the start.The judge's 152-page opinion emphasized that Lively's claims must be viewed in the context of the film's production, noting that creative artists need space to experiment within scripted scenes without fear of liability for sexual harassment. The court also determined Lively was working as an independent contractor, not an employee, which impacted her ability to bring sexual harassment claims.Lively's attorney, Mike Gottlieb, responded that the ruling was based on 'legal technicalities' and not an endorsement of the defendants' conduct. A trial is scheduled for May 18.

A federal judge has thrown out the majority of Blake Lively's claims against Justin Baldoni, her co-star and director of the domestic violence film It Ends With Us.In a court ruling on Thursday, Judge Lewis Liman dismissed 10 of the 13 claims in Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni, including claims of sexual harassment, conspiracy, and defamation. Only three claims will now be heard at trial: breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting in retaliation.The decision leaves Lively's case with a narrower focus, limited to her claims that Baldoni was behind a retaliatory campaign which shared and boosted negative stories about her online.“This case has always been and will remain focused on the devastating retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively’s reputation because she stood up for safety on the set and that is the case that is going to trial,” Sigrid McCawley, an attorney for Lively, said in a statement.The case is set to go to trial in May after mediation failed last month.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's $400m White House ballroom project, ruling that it requires congressional approval. The decision comes after the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued Trump, alleging he exceeded his authority by demolishing the historic East Wing and starting construction on the new building.District Judge Richard Leon granted a preliminary injunction, stating that no statute gives the President the authority to undertake the project without congressional approval. Leon, appointed by former President George W. Bush, emphasized that the President is the steward of the White House for future generations, not its owner.The ruling halts construction on the 90,000 square-foot ballroom project while the lawsuit continues. However, Leon allowed for construction necessary for safety and security to proceed. The judge has given the Trump administration 14 days to appeal, which the Justice Department has done.Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the National Trust, welcomed the ruling, calling it a win for the American people. In response, Trump called the National Trust left-wing 'lunatics' and claimed his ballroom project is under budget, ahead of schedule, and will be the finest building of its kind anywhere in the world.

A federal judge in California has ruled in favor of Anthropic in its case against the Department of Defense, granting a temporary injunction against the government's punitive measures. The standoff revolves around Anthropic's refusal to allow the Pentagon to use its Claude AI model for autonomous lethal weapons or domestic mass surveillance.Judge Rita Lin found that the government overstepped its authority in designating Anthropic as a 'supply chain risk,' stating that this move was 'likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.' The judge questioned the government's rationale, suggesting that their actions seemed aimed at crippling Anthropic.Anthropic argued that the government's actions violated its First Amendment rights and could cost the company hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. The injunction has significant implications for the government's efforts to replace Claude with other AI tools, particularly given its extensive use in military operations, including target selection and analysis of missile strikes.