A federal judge based in Miami has turned down a request from an artificial intelligence firm that wanted to provide an unsolicited legal analysis regarding President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, its parent company, and Rupert Murdoch, the founder of News Corp.
In an order issued on August 25, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles denied a motion submitted by Mindcast AI LLC. The firm aimed to file an 8,500-word amicus curiae brief, claiming its insights could aid the court in spotting patterns of “systemic litigation manipulation” relevant to the case.
Judge Gayles stated: “Mindcast AI LLC (the ‘Movant’) claims to have reached out to all parties via email, but the Court did not receive consent from either the Plaintiff or Defendants. Furthermore, the Court believes that this brief wouldn’t significantly assist in resolving this matter.”
Why This Verdict Matters
This case is significant, not just because a president is going after one of the most influential media empires but also because it illustrates the complex issues federal courts face at the crossroads of politics, press freedom, and advancing technology.
Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit poses critical inquiries about media accountability and legal procedures. Plus, the court’s refusal of an unsolicited AI-generated submission indicates how judges might regulate machine-assisted efforts to influence high-stakes legal battles.
Key Points to Consider
The Defamation Lawsuit
Trump initiated the lawsuit on July 18, 2025, in Florida’s Southern District. The defendants listed include Dow Jones, News Corp, Murdoch, News Corp’s CEO Robert Thomson, along with two WSJ journalists, Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo.
The lawsuit demands at least $10 billion in damages, claiming that The Wall Street Journal knowingly printed false and damaging statements in a report published on July 17.
This controversial article was called “Friends of Jeffrey Epstein Sent Him Provocative Letters for His 50th Birthday Album. One Came from Donald Trump.” Trump denied authenticating the letter attributed to him, arguing that the article severely harmed his reputation and finances.
Dispute Over Rupert Murdoch Deposition
A significant argument early in the case involved whether Murdoch, who is 94, should testify before the anticipated motion to dismiss by the defenses. Trump’s legal team requested an expedited deposition on July 28, citing concerns over Murdoch’s health, including reports of a collapse earlier and a history of serious medical issues.
Subsequently, Gayles granted a joint request to pause discovery while the dismissal motion is pending. According to this deal, Murdoch and Thomson gave up their defenses related to personal jurisdiction. If the lawsuit continues, Murdoch must participate in an in-person deposition in the U.S. within 30 days of a decision denying dismissal.
MindCast AI’s Argument
Mindcast AI lodged its motion on July 31, requesting to submit its brief as amicus curiae—a nonparty providing information or arguments to assist the judge in a case. The firm argued that its analysis might help the court recognize interconnected litigation strategies designed to “manipulate judicial processes for obstruction instead of legitimate dispute resolution.”
The proposed brief claimed that Trump’s substantial defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and Murdoch reflects a recurring pattern of what it terms “coercive narrative manipulation” litigation. It suggested that Trump’s defamation lawsuits tend to pressure settlements when defendants are faced with vulnerabilities and scratch comfort, yet they generally fail substantively in court.
The firm identified what it termed “asymmetric exploitation of immunity”—Trump aggressively suing media outlets while simultaneously claiming immunity from similar lawsuits himself. They questioned the timing of the lawsuit filed just after the Journal‘s report and amid pressure in Congress regarding the Epstein case, suggesting it was part of a broader trend of legal manipulations aimed at derailing oversight pursuits while attempting to achieve actual legal outcomes.
MindCast set itself up as a neutral AI platform with a knack for exposing systematic manipulation of litigation through predictive modeling, claiming that its “Cognitive Digital Twin” technology could notice coordinated tactics missed in individual case reviews.
Mindcast asserted that while it did not take a stance on the factual allegations regarding Trump, its goal was to preserve the integrity of the judicial process by alerting courts about the potential use of litigation as a narrative-control tool. Its recommendations urged stricter case management, balanced discovery, sanctions for improper purposes, and an accelerated constitutional review of Trump’s legal approach. They warned that overlooking these concerns could normalize using litigation as a means to suppress transparency and diminish democratic scrutiny.
Ultimately, Gayles decided that the submission was unsupported by necessary party consent and would not be beneficial for the court’s analysis. As a result, the judge denied the request to file the brief, meaning it was not officially recorded in the court docket.
What’s the Buzz About?
President Donald Trump recently remarked on Truth Social: “We have just actioned a POWERHOUSE lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing that fake, malicious, defamatory ‘article’ in the worthless ‘rag’ known as The Wall Street Journal.”
A spokesperson for Dow Jones told Reuters: “We have complete faith in the thoroughness and accuracy of our coverage and will vehemently defend against this lawsuit.”
Judge Darrin P. Gayles stated in his order: “Mindcast AI LLC (the ‘Movant’) claims to have engaged all parties, but there’s no consent from Plaintiff or Defendants. Additionally, I don’t see the brief providing substantial assistance in this matter.”
Mindcast AI, within its motion: “Mindcast AI makes no claims on the factual intricacies about President Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein or the veracity of the reporting by The Wall Street Journal. Our interest lies solely in aiding the Court to identify and manage systematic procedural manipulation trends exploiting judicial avenues for obstruction rather than authentic dispute resolution.”
What’s Up Next?
The next steps involve assessing if the lawsuit can withstand the motion to dismiss from the defendants, which includes The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, News Corp, Murdoch, and others. The court has currently paused all discovery until this motion is resolved. Following a stipulation approved by Gayles, both Murdoch and Thomson have relinquished personal jurisdiction defenses but no depositions or document exchanges will take place until the judge provides a ruling.
If the court permits the case to advance, Murdoch will be obliged to give an in-person deposition in the U.S. within 30 days after a denial. Meanwhile, Gayles has pulled Mindcast AI’s suggested 8,500-word brief from the court records.
