A Miami federal judge just slammed the brakes on an oddball attempt by an AI outfit to meddle in President Donald Trump’s massive $10 billion defamation battle against The Wall Street Journal and media titan Rupert Murdoch.
On July 18, 2025, Trump launched a legal firestorm in the Southern District of Florida, and now a peculiar side story involving AI-driven legal analysis has been shut down hard by the court.
Newsweek reported that Trump’s lawsuit targets Dow Jones, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson, and Wall Street Journal reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo, alleging a July 17, 2025, article titled “Jeffrey Epstein's Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump” spread false and damaging claims.
Trump, taking to Truth Social, declared, “We have just filed a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS 'article' in the useless 'rag' that is, The Wall Street Journal.” Well, that’s one way to throw down the gauntlet, and it’s hard not to admire the sheer grit of a leader refusing to let media narratives run unchecked.
The complaint demands at least $10 billion, with Trump denying the authenticity of a letter attributed to him in the report, claiming it inflicted “overwhelming” harm to his reputation and finances. If true, this isn’t just a story—it’s a textbook case of why trust in legacy media keeps circling the drain.
On July 28, 2025, Trump’s legal team pushed for an expedited deposition of 94-year-old Murdoch, citing his age and health concerns, including a reported collapse earlier in the year. It’s a fair concern—justice shouldn’t be delayed by Father Time—but it also shows how personal this fight has become.
Enter Mindcast AI LLC, which, on July 31, 2025, tried to insert itself into the fray with an unsolicited 8,500-word amicus curiae brief. They pitched it as a way to expose “systematic litigation manipulation patterns,” whatever that means in plain English.
Mindcast AI claimed in its motion, “Mindcast AI takes no position on the factual allegations concerning President Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.”
Nice dodge, but their talk of “coercive narrative governance” and “procedural weaponization” reeks of progressive buzzwords trying to sound neutral while casting shade on Trump’s legal strategy.
They even suggested stricter case management and sanctions, as if the court needs an AI nanny to babysit a $10 billion lawsuit. Frankly, this feels like tech overreach—stick to coding apps, not courtroom drama.
On August 25, 2025, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles dropped the hammer, rejecting Mindcast AI’s motion outright. In his order, he noted, “The Court does not find that the proposed brief would be helpful.” Translation: take your algorithms and buzz off—this case doesn’t need sci-fi interference.
Judge Gayles also pointed out that neither Trump nor the defendants consented to this digital interloper’s filing. It’s refreshing to see a judge keep the focus on real parties, not some tech startup’s grandstanding.
Meanwhile, an early dispute in the case centered on whether Murdoch should be deposed before the defendants’ expected motion to dismiss.
A joint stipulation, approved by Gayles, paused discovery until that motion is ruled on, with Murdoch and Thomson waiving personal jurisdiction defenses.
If the dismissal motion fails, Murdoch must face an in-person deposition in the U.S. within 30 days of the ruling. That’s a high-stakes moment—truth will either come to light or get buried under more legal wrangling.
Dow Jones, predictably, isn’t backing down, with a spokesperson telling Reuters, “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting.” Confidence is great, but when reputations are on the line, you’d better have more than bravado to back it up.