A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by author and journalist Michael Wolff against First Lady Melania Trump, sharply criticizing the case as a “contorted” legal maneuver that amounted to improper “tactical gamesmanship.”
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Manhattan-based jurist appointed by President Donald Trump, ruled that although the federal court technically had jurisdiction over the dispute, she would decline to exercise it. In a pointed opinion, Vyskocil said she refused to be “drafted to oversee an abusively presented spat” and ordered the matter dismissed so it could “be litigated like any other.”
The decision marks the latest development in a high-profile clash between the First Lady and Wolff, whose past books have included critical accounts of the Trump administration. The conflict escalated last year when attorneys for Melania Trump sent Wolff a formal demand letter requiring him to delete allegedly defamatory statements linking her to Jeffrey Epstein. The letter warned that failure to comply would leave the First Lady with “no alternative” but to pursue legal action.
In response, Wolff filed suit against her in New York state court in October. Trump’s legal team, led by attorney Alejandro Brito, successfully removed the case to federal court. While acknowledging that both sides have a “real dispute,” Judge Vyskocil emphasized that the lawsuit’s presentation fell short of appropriate federal court standards.
A spokesperson for the First Lady welcomed the ruling. “The First Lady is proud to continue standing up to, and fighting against, those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods as they desperately try to get undeserved attention and money from their unlawful conduct,” the statement read.
Melania Trump’s legal team had previously argued that Wolff’s public statements caused her “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.” The 56-year-old First Lady has repeatedly and forcefully denied any association with Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on child sex trafficking charges.
In an April press conference, Melania Trump declared, “The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.” She added, “The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.”
Wolff’s lawsuit portrayed the Trumps as engaging in a pattern of using expensive legal threats to silence critics. He contended that some of his statements were taken out of context or represented protected opinion, including descriptions of the Trumps’ marriage as a “sham marriage” or “trophy marriage.” The filing stressed that Wolff never accused the First Lady of criminal involvement in Epstein-related activities.
The controversy intensified after The Daily Beast retracted an article last summer titled “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” which was based on an interview with Wolff. The outlet pulled the story following a letter from Brito. In that interview, Wolff reportedly described the First Lady as handling matters “behind the scenes” at the White House but clarified she was not criminally involved.
The case has drawn bipartisan attention on Capitol Hill. Republican Rep. Nancy Mace praised Melania Trump’s public stance, stating, “Melania Trump stands with Epstein victims,” and highlighting the First Lady’s advocacy for legislation addressing the distribution of non-consensual intimate images. “The truth will prevail,” Mace added.
Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia responded to the First Lady’s call for congressional action, writing, “We agree with First Lady Melania Trump’s call for a public hearing. We encourage Chairman Comer to schedule a hearing immediately.” Garcia noted that her remarks had renewed focus on broader investigations.
In her April remarks, Melania Trump urged lawmakers: “Now is the time for Congress to act.” She specifically called for victims to have the opportunity to testify under oath.
The dismissal returns the parties to standard litigation channels, leaving open the possibility of further legal proceedings in state court. Legal observers note that defamation cases involving public figures often face high hurdles under First Amendment precedents, particularly when opinions rather than verifiable facts are at issue.
This episode underscores ongoing tensions between the Trump family and members of the media who have produced unflattering coverage. As the First Lady continues her public role, her legal team has signaled a willingness to aggressively defend her reputation against what they characterize as baseless attacks.
