🚨 Judge Dismisses Wolff’s Lawsuit, Paving the Way for Melania’s $1 Billion Claim!

Federal Judge Dismisses Michael Wolff’s Lawsuit Against Melania Trump as “Contorted” and Improper Gamesmanship

A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit filed by journalist and author Michael Wolff against First Lady Melania Trump, sharply criticizing the action as a “contorted” preemptive maneuver that does not reflect how the federal courts are supposed to function.

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee serving on the Southern District of New York, wrote that the case reflected an “inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship.” She stated she would not be “conscripted to oversee an abusively presented spat,” even while recognizing that the parties have a genuine underlying dispute that should proceed under ordinary litigation rules rather than through an attempt to secure an early judicial advantage.

The dispute began after Melania Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, sent Wolff a demand letter requiring him to retract certain public statements and warning that failure to comply would leave her with “no alternative” but to sue. Wolff responded by filing his own lawsuit in New York state court in October, seeking a declaration that his remarks were not defamatory and invoking New York’s anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to discourage lawsuits intended to chill public speech. Trump’s lawyers then removed the case to federal court.

Vyskocil ruled that the federal court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction—based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship and the large damages (reportedly up to $1 billion) at stake in the threatened defamation action—but declined to exercise it. She dismissed the case so that any litigation would proceed “like any other,” preventing Wolff from short-circuiting the normal process by racing to a preferred forum and law before the first lady filed her own suit, which her side indicated would likely be brought in Florida.

A spokesperson for Melania Trump said 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.” Her legal team had previously asserted that Wolff’s statements caused her “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.”

Melania Trump has repeatedly denied any association with the late Jeffrey Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on child sex trafficking charges. At an April press conference she declared, “The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.” She added that the individuals making such claims “are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect,” and that she rejects their “mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.”

In his complaint, Wolff claimed that President Trump and the first lady “have made a practice of threatening those who speak against them” with costly legal actions “to silence their speech, to intimidate their critics generally, and to extract unjustified payments and North Korean-style confessions and apologies.” He argued that some of his remarks were taken out of context and that others were protected opinion, including his characterization of the Trumps’ relationship as a “sham marriage” or “trophy marriage,” which he described as a “fair and justified” opinion. Wolff’s filing also stated that he never accused the first lady of criminal involvement with Epstein.

The controversy drew wider attention after The Daily Beast published—and later retracted—an article last summer titled “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” based on an interview with Wolff. The outlet withdrew the piece after receiving a letter from Brito. In the underlying interview, Wolff said he had reported that the first lady was working “behind the scenes” on the Epstein-related situation at the White House but was not involved in any criminal activity.

Republican Representative Nancy Mace publicly praised Melania Trump for standing with Epstein victims and for her advocacy of legislation addressing the distribution of non-consensual intimate images, stating that “the truth will prevail.” Democratic Representative Robert Garcia echoed the first lady’s call for congressional action, writing that lawmakers agreed with her request for a public hearing and urging Chairman James Comer to schedule one promptly. In her own remarks, Melania Trump had urged Congress to act and to allow victims to testify under oath.

The dismissal does not resolve the merits of whether any of Wolff’s statements were defamatory. It simply requires the parties to litigate any continuing dispute through conventional procedures rather than through a preemptive declaratory-judgment action. Wolff has indicated he may pursue an appeal, and the first lady’s side has signaled continued willingness to pursue claims arising from the statements. The case illustrates the friction that can arise when public figures, journalists, and high-stakes speech disputes intersect with procedural rules governing forum choice and anti-SLAPP protections.