A federal judge has dismissed a $3.8 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Trump Media and Technology Group against The Washington Post. The suit, initiated in 2023 by President Donald Trump’s social media company, accused the newspaper of publishing false and damaging statements.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Barber, based in Tampa, ruled on Thursday in favor of The Washington Post, granting the newspaper’s motion for summary judgment and rejecting one filed by Trump Media. In a summary docket entry, Barber noted that Trump Media failed to present sufficient evidence to show that The Post acted with “actual malice” — a legal standard requiring proof that a publisher knew information was false or recklessly disregarded its truthfulness.

The lawsuit centered on an article published on May 13, 2023, which detailed Trump Media’s efforts to secure financing ahead of a planned merger to take the company public. The merger involved Digital World Acquisition, a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), that received approval from federal securities regulators in February 2024. A month later, the combined entity began trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol DJT.

Trump Media’s complaint described the newspaper’s coverage as a “years-long crusade” culminating in what it called an “egregious hit piece.” Following the conclusion of discovery in the case, The Post appended a correction to the original article on May 22, 2026, acknowledging that information regarding a $240,000 loan referral fee was inaccurate. The correction stated that discovery revealed Trump Media did not pay the fee as initially reported.

In response, a spokesperson for Trump Media called the correction a vindication, saying, “After three years, The Washington Post finally admitted its harmful story was false.” The company indicated it is considering an appeal and argued that the suit should have been decided by a jury. “We believe a jury should decide whether these falsehoods were actionable and will evaluate whether to appeal last week’s ruling in due course,” the statement added, emphasizing a continued commitment to holding the media accountable.

The Washington Post expressed satisfaction with the ruling and said it looks forward to reviewing the court’s forthcoming written opinion. The case highlights ongoing legal challenges related to defamation standards for public figures in the United States, where courts require proof of actual malice as established by the 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.