Frenemies for life: Trump vs Murdoch enters round 2

It doesn’t get any better than reading the entrails of a billowing stoush between Australia’s highest-profile export, Rupert Murdoch, and his pugnacious president and frenemy, Donald Trump.

They were at it again this week as they battled over who was telling the truth about the authenticity of a bawdy birthday card sent to disgraced paedophile Jeffrey Epstein that Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal newspaper alleged had been signed by Trump.

But marrying this battle with Trump’s recent announcement that he had invited Murdoch to become part of an investment syndicate of great patriots to buy out the US assets of TikTok creates a cognitive dissonance.

It’s fair to say that despite the various reservations Murdoch has had about Trump through the years, the president has been a huge bonus for the nonagenarian’s right-wing cable business Fox. So convinced was Murdoch of the financial importance of retaining Fox’s conservative political stance that billions were spent to ensure his politically like-minded son Lachlan would be cemented as his heir.

That outcome plays well for Trump, who has no other natural allies in the mainstream media. But despite their codependency, it looks like neither is afraid to cross swords with the other.

In July, Trump launched defamation action against Murdoch alleging that the Wall Street Journal, its publisher Dow Jones and News Corp had damaged his reputation.

Murdoch and News Corp subsequently pushed for a US judge to dismiss Trump’s $10 billion libel lawsuit, calling the case “an affront to the First Amendment”.

Murdoch’s lawyers have also challenged the notion that the article could have damaged Trump’s reputation, pointing out he had “publicly admitted to ‘locker room talk’ and has made numerous bawdy public statements”, as well as noting his relationship with Epstein.

Now, Trump is urging the judge to let the defamation proceedings remain on track, claiming the Wall Street Journal has been unsuccessful in proving the card he allegedly sent to Epstein was real.

An identical birthday note handed over to the House Oversight Committee by the Epstein estate does not prove that Trump actually wrote and sent the letter, according to a new filing by Trump’s lawyers.

They have also accused the Wall Street Journal of “[prioritising] gossip, clicks, and profit over truth”.

The Murdochs are standing by the story and there is plenty at stake for both titans. For Murdoch and his marquee publication there is as much as $US10 billion ($15.3 billion) on the line, as well as credibility and journalistic reputation.

For Trump, who has been accused by his own fan base of being opaque around his relationship with Epstein, the Wall Street Journal’s story leaves him vulnerable to fresh allegations. His attempts to deflect or dismiss it have failed, and he has at times lashed out at his own base for their fixation on the story.

Neither titan seems prepared to let it go.

While the Murdoch camp clearly wants Trump’s defamation action dropped, Murdoch seems prepared to back the publication’s journalistic integrity, given there is no hint of a settlement in the wings.

And he should take some comfort in a US federal judge recently dismissing Trump’s separate $15 billion defamation case against The New York Times, citing deficiencies in its legal foundation.

US District Judge Steven Merryday ruled Trump had failed to comply with a federal requirement demanding a “short and plain statement” justifying his claim for relief. The court observed that a legal filing is not “a protected platform to rage against an adversary”.

Trump has since refiled that claim. He is clearly prepared to take on the courts and the behemoths of the fourth estate, egged on by an entourage of sycophants pumping his tyres at every opportunity.

Murdoch is not the sort to pay homage lightly, and at 94, the mogul seems ready and willing to take Trump on.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.