A federal judge in Manhattan has thrown out author Michael Wolff’s lawsuit against first lady Melania Trump, refusing to decide in advance whether comments he made about her and Jeffrey Epstein were defamatory.
In a 45-page opinion issued May 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil said Wolff’s case was a “contorted” effort to lock in a legal win before the first lady sued him. “Plaintiff asks for a declaration that, if the first lady sues him, he deserves to win,” she wrote. “That is not how the federal courts work.”
Wolff, who has written several books about President Donald Trump, sued after receiving a demand letter from Melania Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito. The letter accused Wolff of making false statements that caused “overwhelming reputational and financial harm” and warned that she would have “no alternative” but to sue for $1 billion if he did not retract them. Wolff filed in New York state court on Oct. 21, 2025. Trump’s lawyers later removed the case to federal court.
Vyskocil, appointed by President Trump, found that the court had diversity jurisdiction: the parties are citizens of different states and the threatened claim exceeded $1 billion. She declined to use that jurisdiction. Citing “an inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship,” she said she would not be “conscripted to oversee an abusively presented spat.” The dispute, she wrote, should be “litigated like any other.”
The ruling did not decide whether Wolff’s remarks were true, false, or protected opinion. It was a procedural stop, not a verdict on the underlying fight.
The comments at issue grew out of Wolff’s media appearances, including a Daily Beast podcast interview. A Daily Beast article based on that interview, headlined “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” was retracted in July 2025 after Brito sent a letter. The outlet later apologized to the first lady and to readers and removed part of the related podcast episode. In his lawsuit, Wolff said some remarks were taken out of context and that he never accused Melania Trump of criminal conduct tied to Epstein. He described other comments — including that the Trumps have a “sham” or “trophy” marriage — as fair opinion. He argued the threat of a massive lawsuit was meant to chill speech and extract an apology.
Melania Trump has repeatedly denied any association with Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on child sex-trafficking charges. In an April 2026 appearance she said, “The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” and accused critics of “mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.” After the dismissal, a spokesperson said she would keep “standing up to, and fighting against, those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods.”
Vyskocil’s opinion also criticized forum shopping. Wolff sued in New York, where anti-SLAPP rules can favor speakers facing intimidation suits. Trump’s side pointed to Florida, where she maintains her primary residence and where a billion-dollar defamation case would more naturally be filed. The judge said Wolff had won “the race to the courthouse” but could not force a New York federal court to pre-decide defenses to a suit that had not yet been brought there in the ordinary way.
The dismissal leaves the core conflict intact. Wolff still faces the prospect of a defamation action. Melania Trump still contends his statements were false and damaging. The court simply refused to referee that fight on Wolff’s chosen timetable and in the form he presented it.
What comes next is the ordinary path the judge described: if the first lady sues, Wolff can raise truth, opinion, and First Amendment defenses in that case. If she does not, the preemptive New York action is over. Either way, Vyskocil made clear that celebrity, politics, and a looming nine-figure demand do not entitle either side to skip the usual rules.
